Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
::::::::Look, ''I have divided the timetable into periods of 4 in 4 years''. The '''reason''', that this division coincides with the celebration of the regional elections (which marks the beginning and the end of each legislature) and allows giving additional information to the readers. You want to put it 5 in 5 years because ... you want to put it like this because you say it is the right thing to do, without giving any reason. Why not set the time frame at two years or ten years or fifteen years? Your position seems inexplicable to me. Explain why, being able to use a chronological division that does not hurt anyone and, in fact, provides extra information to whoever reads it, you prefer that other one. |
::::::::Look, ''I have divided the timetable into periods of 4 in 4 years''. The '''reason''', that this division coincides with the celebration of the regional elections (which marks the beginning and the end of each legislature) and allows giving additional information to the readers. You want to put it 5 in 5 years because ... you want to put it like this because you say it is the right thing to do, without giving any reason. Why not set the time frame at two years or ten years or fifteen years? Your position seems inexplicable to me. Explain why, being able to use a chronological division that does not hurt anyone and, in fact, provides extra information to whoever reads it, you prefer that other one. |
||
::::::::If you agree to eliminate Sánchez de León, I agree to set the starting date for Olivas' mandate as you have proposed. No problem on that.--[[User:Baprow|Baprow]] ([[User talk:Baprow|talk]]) 19:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC) |
::::::::If you agree to eliminate Sánchez de León, I agree to set the starting date for Olivas' mandate as you have proposed. No problem on that.--[[User:Baprow|Baprow]] ([[User talk:Baprow|talk]]) 19:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::Er... the discussion is still ongoing. Not only did you refrain from undoing your previous edit, but made a new one without I having agreed with that (not yet at least). I said I contemplated removing Sánchez de León from the timetable, not that ''you'' could use it as some bargaining chip in such a rude and distasteful way. I've intentionally refrained from further editing the article prevent causing any more conflict, but you simply don't care. The page is not yours to reign, and you only keep evidencing your total disregard for the other party with every one of your moves. Again, and for a '''fourth time''', I politely ask you to please revert your (now two) latest edits. |
|||
:::::::::On the [[WP:OWN]] issue, just quote yourself: {{tq|"I remind you that my timetable and my colors were there before you made your changes."}} and {{tq|"the timetable that I put originally", "the colors that I put originally", "the colors that you put after my contribution" or "the way you have modified the timetable that I put"}}. '''That is ownership'''. It doesn't matter how you put it: suggesting that I can't edit some parts of the article because you added some other thing before, or arguing that I can't edit something because I would overwrite your edits, falls under [[WP:OWN]] as well. I made the changes to bring the timeline in line with other similar timelines throughout Wikipedia and with the color shades currently in use in the templates (and ''that'' is a good reason for change). You reverted it on the basis that you seemingly have some right over it because you added it before (that's ''not'' a good reason for reverting). I don't have to ask ''you'' anything, and you still have not given an explanation about why we should use different shades than the ones in the Wikipedia templates other than you complaining about how bad I was for overwriting your previous edit. That's just in breach of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. |
|||
:::::::::Yes, you are again giving the same reason about the correlation with regional elections, a correlation that doesn't exist. On the "5 in 5 years" issue: I have put it on multiples of 5 (1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, etc) which signal the beginning, the middle and the end of a decade. And you know why? Because this is how this is done {{underline|everywhere else}} in the English wikipedia: [[List of prime ministers of Australia#Timeline|example 1]], [[List of prime ministers of Canada#Timeline|example 2]], [[List_of prime ministers of Italy#Timeline|example 3]], [[List of prime ministers of Spain#Timeline|example 4]], [[List of prime ministers of New Zealand#Timeline|example 5]], [[List of presidents of the Government of Catalonia#Timeline|example 6]], [[List of prime ministers of Portugal#Timeline|example 7]], [[President of the United States#Timeline|example 8]], [[List of chancellors of Germany#Timeline|example 9]]... and many more that could be mentioned. So no, you are not right here. Your edits are in error and you should be wise and accept it rather than keeping on this rather reckless behaviour. [[User:Impru20|'''<span style="color:#E65B00;">Impru</span><span style="color:#0018A8;">20</span>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Impru20|talk]]</sup> 22:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:25, 14 September 2020
![]() | Spain Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
|
Recent edits
@Baprow: I'm sincerely not understanding your recent string of edits. Could you please elaborate what do you mean with this and this? I also see no correlation between what you say and your edits. Why do you keep removing Sánchez de León as acting president from the timeline and changing the colors, and what has that to do with a parliamentary term lasting four years? Impru20talk 16:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't understand you. You accuse me of changing the colors, but the colors I put in are basically the same (with slight variations). In fact, the last ones I have posted are the exact same ones you posted and your accusation persists. And I repeat to you again. I have structured the timeline of four in four years to coincide with the regional legislatures (for example, the last president Ximo Puig has two legislatures, the one from 2015 to 2019 and from 2019 to, presumably, 2023). I think this helps to see how many periods each person has governed. Regarding Sánchez de León, his acting presidency lasted only a few days and, in any case, her name on the timetable is not consistent with the rest and remains like a glob. --Baprow (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Baprow: I ask you to please undo your edits until this discussion is over, or else I'll have to consider this as a blatant case of disruptive edit warring. What you are doing here is very reckless and unpolite, specially after you have been asked to discuss the issue.
With slight variations
Yes, and I'm disputing those slight variations with respect to the templates at use. Why? There is any purpose in making "slight variations" to the colours or it's just a matter of your own taste? Because it that is the case, there is no reason at all to make the change. There is no reason at all to use different shades than those used in the article.- Your argument for changing to "regional legislatures" is also absurd: legislatures do not have to last for four years. If a snap election is called, the parliamentary legislature will be shorter. In fact, you seem to consider 1979-1983 as a legislature, which it wasn't. Easy to understand, right? Attempting to impose that correlation to the reader is confusing and misleading.
I think this helps to see how many periods each person has governed. Regarding Sánchez de León, his acting presidency lasted only a few days and, in any case, her name on the timetable is not consistent with the rest and remains like a glob.
Ok, so you acknowledge having removed Sánchez de León and mixing parliamentary terms with executive terms just because your own preference rather than because any encyclopedic purpose. This is not customary practice elsewhere in Wikipedia and you are giving no reason why this specific article should be different.- We can discuss this issue further, but I please ask you again to undo your edits while the discussion is ongoing. Impru20talk 16:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Why? There is any purpose in making "slight variations" to the colours?
. I remind you that my timeline and my colors were there before you made your changes. I could ask you the same.legislatures do not have to last for four years.
Okay. And if there are early elections that break that trend, I will be the first to put the years from 5 to 5, but until then I think it is more appropriate to provide information on when the elections took place.Ok, so you acknowledge having removed Sánchez de León and mixing parliamentary terms with executive terms just because your own preference rather than becaus
No, as I have already shown you, the interim presidency of Sánchez de León, apart from being brief, we could say that he had his functions shared with Juan Cotino. And if you still insist on putting it on, better do it right.--Baprow (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)I remind you that my timetable and my colors were there before you made your changes.
Excuse me? "My" timetable? "My" colors? Get yourself accustomed to WP:OWN. This is not your timetable. These are not your colours. This is not your article. Btw, the colours in the templates have been in place for... almost a decade? If you got the colour shades wrong then that's your problem, not that of anyone else that comes to fix them. This possessive behaviour from you on this article and its elements is very worrying.Okay. And if there are early elections that break that trend, I will be the first to put the years from 5 to 5, but until then I think it is more appropriate to provide information on when the elections took place.
This reply makes little sense and does not answer the concerns I brought forward. 1979-1983 was not a legislature. Parliamentary terms do not necessarily correlate to a president's term (in fact, they don't: Zaplana resigned in 2002, then Olivas succeeded him for the next year. The parliamentary term was unchanged, but that of the president was changed. Same for Camps and Fabra in 2011).- So, brief presidencies do not count for you? I'd assume you'd exclude half the Spanish prime ministers from the timeline because of their tenures lasting days or weeks. Lol. Even if interim, Sánchez de León (who is a "she", not a "he"; not sure if it's a wrong use of English or that you don't know about her gender) exercised as acting president. Cotino didn't. The source you did bring actually shows that the leadership of the government was given to Sánchez de León (Cotino only exercised representative functions he already had for granted by virtue of his office as president of the Cortes). Can you bring a source claiming that both of them acted as co-presidents during this time?
- Finally, and for a second time, I please ask you to undo your edit at least until this discussion is over. Impru20talk 16:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- First of all, I would beg you to stop using semantics against me. You know perfectly what I'm saying, and moreover I don't consider very polite to make fun of mistakes.
- Secondly, what I am translating in the timeline is the parliamentary term, not the presidential term. In the case of Zaplana, someone who sees the table will know that Zaplana resigned before the term ended because the date of the elections is every four years.
- Third, there are many other tables in this and other Wikipedias where interim and very brief political offices are not counted. It's not outrageous. And I repeat it, if you want to put Sánchez de León, at least put it well.--Baprow (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- First of all, and for the third time, I please ask you to undo your latest edit until this discussion is over. From here, not doing it will mean you are acting with a complete lack of politeness, good faith and constructive spirit.
- Secondly, claiming ownership over elements in the article as you did is not an issue of "semantics".
- Thirdly:
what I am translating in the timeline is the parliamentary term, not the presidential term
You seem to acknowledge having overlooked the dozens of times that I stated that "the parliamentary term does not equal to the presidential term" (with that in mind, it makes no sense to convey that correlation into the timeline). I'll assume you overlooked that as an accident as per WP:AGF (and despite we both being perfectly aware you didn't), but not anymore. As in the next argument you seem to make a comparison with other articles in this Wikipedia on the issue of acting presidents, I remind you that other articles in this Wikipedia do not divide the timeline by "parliamentary terms": that's a choice of your own that has no other basis but your own preference. - And finally, what is done in "other Wikipedias" is not of our concern, because they work under their own rules. Nonetheless, this one is a point in which I don't have a strong stance anyway, so I'm willing to drop the case for having acting presidents in the timeline as long as consistency is achieved (that means Olivas shouldn't be shown as president before 24 July 2002, either). Impru20talk 17:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have not claimed ownership of anything at all. I have said "my timetable" and "my colors" and "your colors" and "your timetable" not to say "the timetable that I put originally", "the colors that I put originally", "the colors that you put after my contribution" or "the way you have modified the timetable that I put". You are making a personal interpretation and seeing bad faith where there is none.
- Look, I have divided the timetable into periods of 4 in 4 years. The reason, that this division coincides with the celebration of the regional elections (which marks the beginning and the end of each legislature) and allows giving additional information to the readers. You want to put it 5 in 5 years because ... you want to put it like this because you say it is the right thing to do, without giving any reason. Why not set the time frame at two years or ten years or fifteen years? Your position seems inexplicable to me. Explain why, being able to use a chronological division that does not hurt anyone and, in fact, provides extra information to whoever reads it, you prefer that other one.
- If you agree to eliminate Sánchez de León, I agree to set the starting date for Olivas' mandate as you have proposed. No problem on that.--Baprow (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- Er... the discussion is still ongoing. Not only did you refrain from undoing your previous edit, but made a new one without I having agreed with that (not yet at least). I said I contemplated removing Sánchez de León from the timetable, not that you could use it as some bargaining chip in such a rude and distasteful way. I've intentionally refrained from further editing the article prevent causing any more conflict, but you simply don't care. The page is not yours to reign, and you only keep evidencing your total disregard for the other party with every one of your moves. Again, and for a fourth time, I politely ask you to please revert your (now two) latest edits.
- On the WP:OWN issue, just quote yourself:
"I remind you that my timetable and my colors were there before you made your changes."
and"the timetable that I put originally", "the colors that I put originally", "the colors that you put after my contribution" or "the way you have modified the timetable that I put"
. That is ownership. It doesn't matter how you put it: suggesting that I can't edit some parts of the article because you added some other thing before, or arguing that I can't edit something because I would overwrite your edits, falls under WP:OWN as well. I made the changes to bring the timeline in line with other similar timelines throughout Wikipedia and with the color shades currently in use in the templates (and that is a good reason for change). You reverted it on the basis that you seemingly have some right over it because you added it before (that's not a good reason for reverting). I don't have to ask you anything, and you still have not given an explanation about why we should use different shades than the ones in the Wikipedia templates other than you complaining about how bad I was for overwriting your previous edit. That's just in breach of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. - Yes, you are again giving the same reason about the correlation with regional elections, a correlation that doesn't exist. On the "5 in 5 years" issue: I have put it on multiples of 5 (1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, etc) which signal the beginning, the middle and the end of a decade. And you know why? Because this is how this is done everywhere else in the English wikipedia: example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5, example 6, example 7, example 8, example 9... and many more that could be mentioned. So no, you are not right here. Your edits are in error and you should be wise and accept it rather than keeping on this rather reckless behaviour. Impru20talk 22:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)