Mountolive (talk | contribs) |
84.120.254.73 (talk) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 554: | Line 554: | ||
Thanks! |
Thanks! |
||
Mountolive |
Mountolive |
||
: 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AValencia_%28autonomous_community%29&diff=142508822&oldid=142501570 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AValencia_%28autonomous_community%29&diff=141277472&oldid=134297990 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'''. --[[User:84.120.254.73|84.120.254.73]] 10:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== The valencian flag... again... == |
== The valencian flag... again... == |
Revision as of 10:14, 6 July 2007
No responguis a l'insensat segons la seva ximpleria, perquè no et tornis com ell, també tu. |
Respon a l'insensat segons la seva ximpleria, perquè no es pensi ser savi. |
Proverbi 26, 4–5 |
TfD nomination of Template:Standard test
Template:Standard test has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Oden 21:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
No personal attacks
With regards to your comments on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 12: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Oden 14:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio
Hi, I found that this stub: Models of atoms is a copyvio of this article by Michael Fowler: Models of the Atom. Please delete. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 18:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Blatant copyvio, and blatantly incorrect as well! Physchim62 (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
A copyvio page
Hi, I need an admin again! I have been in minor conflict with a newbie User:Mikeguth, who was trying to write a bio of his father Eugene Guth, one of the founders of polymer physics and polymer PChem. It got a copyvio tag on it. The stuff in the article was essentially the late Eugene Guth's home page which his son has the copyright for. He just did not do it properly and got cross. I have written a decent little stubb in the temp page referred to on the copyvio notice. Could you please fix it and install the stubb? Many thanks. Maybe I'll try for admin soon. --Bduke 01:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Anglicisation
Hello - I'm contacting you because of your involvement with many French articles. A few have undertaken the task of "Anglicising" French terms in Wiki articles (eg/: "Région => Region"; "Département => Departement") - there doesn't seem to have been any discussion about this, so your point of view would be welcome. I think a good place for this discussion would be the WP:FR page. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 14:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not make personal attacks
Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you feel you cannot comply with it, you may well become unwelcome on the English wikipedia. You should take the trouble to read the policies before you threaten others with them, as you cannot conceivably make a case that I commented on any contributor. Chicheley 20:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I note that you were last referred to Wikipedia:No personal attacks just 5 days ago. Please keep cool and do not expect higher standards of others than you observe yourself. Chicheley 20:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, you did worse, you attacked a whole group of contributers, those of whom English is not the mother tongue. I certainly do not expect higher standards of conduct than I have myself, but neither do I accept blatent bullying, in either of the cases you refer to. Physchim62 (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
template:chembox new
Hi, I have been tampering with the chembox new. There were problems with the images in the NFPA diamond, which I have now resolved by copying the {{NFPA 704}} into the {{NFPA-chembox}} and adapting the code of all templates. The {{chembox new}} now has a new parameter 'NFPA-O'. Now there is a problem, if NFPA-O is there, but has no value, it shows up as the name of the variable. I hope this does not bite your ideas with this template too much, if so, feel free to revert my actions (should be 5 templates and ~4 pages). Otherwise, would you mind having a look at that variable-problem, my template knowledge seems to be insufficient here? Cheers. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- This was one of the hardest parts of coding {{chembox new}}: if your changes didn't work, I think you'd know about it by now! :) all improvements on my "patch" solution are welcome: I think the criterion should be the ease of recoding old templates and the correction of bad information. Physchim62 (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, cheers! I will have a second look in that case, there are some things that seem superfluous now, and some things seem missing, but I'll see. I may try some things on an offline wiki to get things to run properly. See you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term
Thank you for your recent interest in m:American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term. However, I just wonder whether simply writing "section 104A" in "When section 104A started automatic copyright restoration" is clear enough. That section of the USA Copyright Act is where I consider a major obstacle to the development of Wiki sites. This is why I wish to eventually gather various Wiki users to request American acceptance of the rule of the shorter term.--Jusjih 18:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
S## templates in List_of_S-phrases
Hi! I see you started this nice little article, but I'm wondering whether any of these templates are seeing use elsewhere. Thanks! // FrankB 05:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- These templates are widely used in articles about chemicals, see Ammonia for just one example, or WP:Chem for a wider picture. Physchim62 (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned fair use image (Image:Montserrat virgin.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Montserrat virgin.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).
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 Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
S-phrases in brackets
Hi. Your have created the templates for R- and S-phrases a long time ago. The are no templates for S-phrases in brackets yet. Please have a look here (at the end). Maybe, you can give a good imput on this topic. Thanks. --Lucido 13:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Replied on Edgar's talk page. Physchim62 (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just wanted to say thanks for creating the template Template:(S2). --Ed (Edgar181) 15:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Spelling of Macau/o
Re [1] [2] - Macao isn't actually a wrong spelling, and is in fact the spelling the Macau Government uses in its publications in the English language. I don't quite agree that the spelling of Macau/o has to be consistent throughout Wikipedia, just like we accept different spelling traditions like colour and color, centre and center, and so on. — Instantnood 17:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Disrespect
Hi,
I'd like you to warn about what I regard as a very unpolite action by the user Maurice27 at the WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries talk page.
I don't mind about his political ideas, but it's very uncivil from him to write such things, ain't? He claims to fight against nationalisms, but he is acting as a very aggressive nationalist when he laughs at whoever doesn't agree him or defends minorized languages and cultures.
Thx for your attention, --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 21:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Page move
Hi, Psyschim62. Can you do a page move. I've cited the reasons here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I have redirected your article of "Ripoll (river)" to the one I created: Riu Ripoll
I created the article "Riu Ripoll" without having knowledge that it already existed another article named "Ripoll (river)". When I saw it, as it was just an stub, I redirected it to the one I had created.
By the way, are you catalan?
Onofre Bouvila 16:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Caistor
It's funny. I see Caistor from my bedroom window every morning. I live in Hibaldstow. --Asteriontalk 07:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Posting from WP Council thread
Thanks for bringing over the WP Council threads to the WP Spain page, but I didn't see where those threads came from. Could you add a link to where they came from? Thanks! EspanaViva 18:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Survey Invitation
Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 21:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me
Capitalization
Hello there! Haven't seen you for a while. I'm just wondering...do you know what are the guidelines for capitalization of article titles when the subject begins with a number? For example, take 18-Electron rule: I'm tempted not to capitalize the "e" in electron, but it seems to be a convention to capitalize the first non-number character. --HappyCamper 02:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the GA/R started all the way back in January, and it looks like the article has been edited quite a bit since then, some of the objections may not apply anymore. I know all about the systematic bias thing, but the thing of it is, this is the English encyclopedia, and I think its fair to expect the majority of readers to be primarily english readers, while we can fix bias problems on our end, we can't fix bias among Wikipedia's readership. I didn't start that GA/R because I think having references in other languages is a terrible thing, but when almost every single one of them is in a non-English language, I think that's a bit too much. Homestarmy 13:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You have created this article. I have renamed it (a shorter title seemed better), and it actually seems it was repealed by Coucil Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights, Article 24. The box needs to be updated. Please could you check whether this is alright, thanks. --Edcolins 16:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I believe you're correct (my EU regulations are on my other computer, so I can't check immediately). I will see what I can do to update the relevant pages, when I get a moment.... :) Physchim62 (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
titration
"I will dig out the reference" <-- sounds useful. The data file I got from User:Atropos235 also includes an attempt to calculate the second derivative, but it is not easy to pick out the signal from the noise in the data. --JWSchmidt 18:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
bot
Hi Physchim.
Luckily seems like the infamous Land of Valencia is at low ebb, hopefully extinguishing in its former stronghold. Now, I think we should ask for a bot to remove LOV from all the articles (is spread everywhere like a virus) and replace it with Valencian Community.
You are more knowledgeable than me with these things, so...do you think you could do that for me? or, alternatively, you could just let me know the procedure required for that. This, of course, in case you agree with this measure, which I wholeheartedly support. Thanks Mountolive | Talk 03:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, at least for the moment, and for several reasons:
- technically, it is not as simple as you think. By past experience, WP has found that bot article changes can get some very strange results: this is why we usually keep them to defined areas of the 'article' text, such as infoboxes or interwiki links.
- the debate is not yet closed on Talk:Valencia (autonomous community), even if most editors agree that LoV is a bad translation. It is bad politics to make a wide-ranging step while other discussions are still in course. IMHO, the priority should be to get a general agreement on how the Valencia (autonomous community) article should look like.
- the title of Valencia (autonomous community) is still in dispute, even if we have managed to move our debates onto areas where improvement is easier. My own preference for the article title is fairly clear, but I do not want a "move war" to be added onto the other disputes. I think that once we have improved the article to GA-status, the problem of the title will resolve itself (even if the decision goes against my current opinion, but that is a question for further debate).
- there is an ongoing process of renewing articles about Valencian municipalities, which may well result in much of the same change being brought about without the need to use the "hammer" of a bot run.
- Patience is not always a virtue, but I feel that it is the best course it this situation at the moment. Thank you for your many contributions, and best wishes Physchim62 (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- On the technical aspect, this bot could, per your comments, then be restricted to infoboxes and interwiki links: any help is needed and, if automated, that's even most welcome ;)
- Now, on the substance of your reply, I was fearing a similar reply. I concede that the matter is not clear but, lately, it has cool down and resistance to removing LoV is at low ebb.
- As you know, sometimes it is a human behaviour thing to refuse to say "ok, I give in" and we might never hear such words from certain people we know. That is why I am thinking that applying euthanasia to LoV is a legitimate option: for, yes, they may implicitly give in, but they won't tell us, nor, of course, do anything to mend this gaffe themselves.
- Anyway, I guess I can request this bot by myself, but I will refrain of doing so just to give some more time to cool off if you think is needed.
- I'm just fearing that, like some wild fires, if you leave it glowing, it may come back as bad as ever. Mountolive | Talk 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- p.s. in any case, I'd appreciated it if you replaced LoV anywhere you find it. I am doing that myself already, but, as I said, it is fairly spread and I don't have any interest in restraining myself to sniff this term here and there to erase it. I still want to continue enjoying wikipedia in its many aspects, not become any zealot whatsoever, probably like those guys I mentioned above. Mountolive | Talk 17:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I have stub articles (including infoboxes) for the 542 Valencian municipalities just waiting to be uploaded (where needed), so I am likely to be looking at a lot of Valencian Community pages over the next couple of days! Unfortunately, I have spent all day travelling to reach Catalonia, and I must get some sleep! I will try to respond to your other points (later) in the morning, as well as taking a look at Names of the Valencian Community. Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I checked Valencia (autonomous community) (one day someone should change it to Valencian Community, I guess) and I have to say that I do like the new solution proposed. I have even checked the page again in my watchlist, because if this gets stable, we could resume work on more interesting and rewarding aspects of the matter. It looks like an incipient and still fragile equilibrium, but hopefully it will work out.
- Then I also took a look at the new "Names of the game". It also looked to me like a good effort and mostly ok. I edited what I thought was reasonable, let's see if you all agree.
- Have a good time in Catalonia: it is supposed to keep rainy for the next few days...but that's ok. I will be looking forward to your comments on the above. Mountolive | Talk 05:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- ps. by the way, if you ever hit anything in Valencian Community related articles which you don't have a clue of, don't hesitate to let me know, I might be of help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 05:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
Yep, it's certainly raining in Capellades! I've just taken a break from uploading stubs and infoboxes for municipalities (and doing the associated cleanup work) to take another look at Valencia (autonomous community). Apart from the naming issue, we are going to have to do some serious work on the history section... I would like to see a short politics section as well, if only to provide a correspondance list of Valencian and national parties (where they go by different names). As for the title of the article, it may well end up being moved to Valencian Community but I don't see this as the most urgent issue. There are some editors who have commented quite strongly that "Valencia" is the 'correct' English name for the AC: I don't agree, and I have seen no evidence in favour of this position, but this is one of the "disputes" I referred to above which will need to be resolved at some point.
For some time now, when I come across references to LoV in other editing, I have been changing them: I was going to say that the sky hasn't fallen in yet, but given the current weather that might not be the best analogy! This Google search gives the current state of play on the issue (don't forget that it also includes talk pages and transcluded templates in the number of hits). I really don't think that a bot run is going to be much help at all: too many of the references are either in the article text or scattered around in category references. By the time you have persuaded a bot-operator to do the run and defined the scope, you might as well have changed them by hand!
I'm not at the point where I am on a systematic blitz against LoV references, although in practice I expect to have changed all references in articles about public administration quite soon... Although I am fairly convinced that "Valencian Community" is the correct term to use when referring to the AC as an AC or in other administrative circumstances, I do wonder whether "Valencian Country" as a translation of País Valencià might be more appropriate for some of the cultural articles... But then I rarely edit cultural articles! I'll weigh in on 'Names of the Game' in the next day or two, I hope there aren't too many fights brewing there ;) Physchim62 (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Being myself a technology dummy, I 'oscillate wildly' between both unfounded skepticism and unfounded optimism as to what automated agents may do for us. I was not aware that a bot will not operate (or, at least, it is not so easy) with un-linked text. Nor I was aware that getting a bot may require the same negotiation skills as lobbying in Washington ;)
- So, yes, that is fine to do some good ol' manually work here and there. I am not myself in a systematic blitz against that either (that would be kind of depressing), but I indeed remove them whenever I hit them. It is good to know that I am not the only one ;)
- If you see the google search, all the damned LoV seems to come from wikipedia...sigh!
- Names of the game, despite some skirmish between myself and Pmmollet seems fairly stable now...dunno, though, whether is like the drought going on for weeks in Catalonia before you arrived or what :P
- As for opening a Politics section...mhh...my advice is: be careful man, that may well be opening Pandora's box! I'd say that opening a table simply listing the parties would be much more appropiate in order to avoid new World Wars...damn, Valencia and politics is a potentially hazardous mix, you know? What I think is certainly needed is (I wrote that in the talk page) to create the own articles for Gastronomy and Sports, because the way these are displayed there give the article -in my opinion- some unencyclopedic "tourist info" touch.
- I wouldn't say that Valencian Country is more appropiate for cultural articles, but that is another story...
- Have a good time....by the way: do you know how to swim? hope you do! :D Mountolive | Talk 16:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- On second thought...what a stupid question whether you can swim...I am sure the large wet haddock has obviously taught you how to do that! :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 16:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
ELAC
Did your "Extra-Long Article Committee" ever get off the ground? I have just blown my top on Talk:List of registered political parties in Spain, which is so long as to be functionally useless! Physchim62 (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, we almost did. In short, we were gaining joiners at a rate of about one new person per day. We trimmed down a few articles and developed some new organizational techniques for long articles. Over two weeks we got up to about 12 participants. But then I posted a note to the featured article talk page stating that because certain featured articles are way over the limit that in the future there would likely be conflict between the two projects. From here the whole thing blew up. A heated argument erupted between a large number of people and the entire project ended up getting scraped. You can read an old version of it here. The talk page to that project turned out to be a nighmare. Since then, I have been actively avoiding anything having to do with long articles. Later: --Sadi Carnot 03:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Avoiding the featured article cabal is a pretty good move on WP as well! I only ever get involved with FA's as a favour to other editors, the whole thing just get my back (and my blood pressure) up too much! Never mind, if you're not doing long articles any more, that will mean that you've got more time for thermodynamics, no? ;) Physchim62 (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- For whatever reason, some people like odd and long lists? Go figure. I did break up the List of states in the Holy Roman Empire, which used to be the longest article in WP; the best way to break up a list, aside from vfd, is to add a side template or top bar box, and then paste each category into it. Also, in WP, I’ve learned, you have to know when to cut your losses and to try to stick to only those contributions which don’t become too involved. This week I'm researching the development of chemical thermodynamics in the time of Helmholtz, with his famous 1882 paper. I hope this helps? Talk later. --Sadi Carnot 06:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Valencia
Thanks for the friendly warning. You didn't have to, since Maurice27 edits were not based on arguments but on an ad hominem accusation of purported xenophobia, they were considered vandalism. Per policy in WP:3RR, which I assume you read thoroughly before bringing your friendly warning (or spurious accusation, depending on the crystal through which you see it) 3RR does not apply when treating vandalism. Nonetheless, thank you for your concern. If you are truly a neutral user in this matter, you should have noticed his accusations in the first place, instead of condoning his edits which were based on an direct attack. --the Dúnadan 02:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Translation
Hi Physchim. I've been thinking for a time on translation the Spanish article "Sistéma Ibérico" [3] on the mountain range. That's one of the important Spanish ranges and it is a shame that this article keeps a red link. One of the motives (besides pure lazyness) that keep me procrastinating it is that I am not sure about what translation would be best in English.
Would that be "Iberian Range"...I think "Iberian System" sounds weird in English, but I am not sure. I made a quick google search, but nothing is very conclusive there, since many of those pages are Spanish based and...well, I just did not bother too much in digging there, I confess.
Apparently, the option taken with a similar case ("Sistema Central") has been simply not translating it [4], but I doubt that the geographical nerds don't have a good English translation for it anyway.
Do you have an opinion or could you refer me to some English native speaker interested in geography who may be of help?
Thanks. Mountolive | Talk 18:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Valencia
Before you restore the Spanish name, let's reach a consensus. Please do not edit unilaterally. If every time a user writes his/her opinion he/she edits the page we will have an edit war. I will answer your concerns, and hopefully we will reach a consensus soon. --the Dúnadan 23:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not editing unilaterally: there are three other editors placing the Spanish name on the infobox, just as there are three editors apart from you who are removing it (often without discussion and/or with uncivil edit summaries). Still, I shall not revert if someone else takes it off (I see that you are up against your 3RR limit again, although I didn't know that when I made the edit). I too hope that we shall reach a consensus soon, as there are plenty of other things which need improving in the article (the one thing that everybody agrees on!). Physchim62 (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't know you were answering comments on your talk page. I know this is probably not the best place to complain, but if I have to say which is the thing that I dislike the most about Wikipedia, and the same thing that has driven away many outstanding editors, is the leniency towards anonymous vandals and users whose attitude is detrimental to the project. (And the small ratio of admins vis-a-vis editors compared to other wikis). I can keep on ignoring Maurice27's newest insults [5] (after you had warned him), but then, dealing with editors like him will end up wearing me down, and like other users, simply give up, or give in to their demands. Thank you for mediating though.
- --the Dúnadan 02:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Invisible-pink-unicorn.jpg
Hello, I've got a question about Image:Invisible-pink-unicorn.jpg. You wrote rm speedy, the invisible pink unicorn is THERE! Is this a joke I'm not getting? --Strangerer (Talk) 19:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I can see the invisible pink unicorn, but then I believe in invisible pink unicorns :P It is only invisible to non-believers. To be serious, no admin is required to delete a page: maybe this one should be categorized under Category:Wikipedia humor, but there is no more reason to delete it than there is to delete Flying Spaghetti Monster. In it's own way, it serves a purpose.
Misunderstanding?
I think you might have misunderstood my comments at Clarification of I8, as your reply seems to be discussing something entirely unrelated. Cheers, TewfikTalk 07:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Re: Question at my RfA
While I am admittedly not satisfied that I came up with the words I was looking for, I have answered your question =P --Moralis (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Global warming article
Thanks for your help just now, and your comment at Talk:Global warming. I posted a question for you just now at that page. Appreciate if you could please take a look at it, if you have a chance, and reply there, if you wish. thanks for your help. Feel free also to write to me at my talk page, if you prefer. Thanks.--Sm8900 03:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Watch help needed
Physchim62, can you help me keep an eye on the capture bonding article. Four people now, including myself, have requested that it be cleaned and wikified. I have been trying to do that and I keep getting reverted back to a terrible April 2006 version, with a 255 word copyvio, by two users, namely User:Hkhenson, i.e. Keith Henson, who claims he coined the term and wants the term presented in his point of view, and User:Maureen D. It’s also very likely that Maureen D is a sock-puppet for Hkhenson based on the edit history of Maureen D and the timing of the following page revert and following talk page comment:
- 03:36, 15 April 2007 Maureen D (Talk | contribs) (rv; see discussion page)
- 03:43, 15 April 2007 Hkhenson (Talk | contribs) (talk page comment)
Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 07:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the eye. I really don’t know what the deal is with this page. I did, however, recently begin looking at the Talk:Keith Henson page, although it’s not my usual route to pry into a person’s business, but possibly it could have something to do with the fact that Yale psychologist John Money writes books on all sorts of abnormal psychology relationships, such as pedophilia, and Keith Henson who is one of the references in the capture bonding article has a lot of discussion about child molestation charges and arrests at Talk:Keith Henson? Also, the article itself has ties to Scientology, which some say is a form of capture bonding, and Henson has connections to this. The whole issue is basically strange? Whatever the case, I’m just sick of seeing the article look like a big paste from someone’s reference, such as did in its initial form. Thanks again for the help. --Sadi Carnot 23:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what to do with this page, but I am minded to send it to AfD as a PoV-fork. Physchim62 (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- By the time you get this in your time zone I expect that you will have read my warning to Mr Henson at Talk:Capture-bonding. I think the crux of the matter is whether we can find evidence of significant acceptance of his ideas (not necessarily majority, by any means) by other psychologists. Evolutionary psychology has come a long way in terms of mainstream acceptance since I studied zoology at Cambridge more than 15 years ago, when it was not considered a fit topic to be discussed sober! However Hensen's hypothesis, as he describes it, is pseudoscience—it is unfalsifiable and unnecessarily complex—and we only carry articles on pseudoscience which has had some external influence. Otherwise, the correct solution is a merge into Stockholm syndrome and/or Keith Hensen, or possibly even a deletion (the article at present would not survive an AfD discussion). We should not present capture-bonding as generally accepted when we have no evidence to that effect, which is the situation at present. What is your opinion on the matter? You seem to know the relevant evolutionary psychology sources better than I (my own interests are more towards the evolution of sexuality, which is a far more complex (and interesting) problem than either Money or Hensen give it credit for). Physchim62 (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this is a very obscure topic. That Henson’s paper is significant outside of his own mind, I have not been able to determine. That Money’s 1986 book on capture bonding has significance I have. In the 2006 book From Princess to Prisoner by Linda McJunckins, on page 211, we find Capture bond – a term used to define the bonding that in some instances develops between the captor and captive, or terrorist and hostage.[1] The book is about a parent's account of a daughter who relinquished her freedoms as a college student to an arduous life as a slave among strangers. Pages 211-212 come right out of Money’s 1986 book. The fact that the term has use in culture, justifies it’s inclusion in Wikipedia. A merge to Stockholm syndrome, however, is not the best option. For one, the concept of capture bonding is used significantly in animal psychology to explain how a female attaches to and reproduces with the take-over male who previously killed her offspring. Most writers don’t say, for example, that “the female Gorilla suffers from Stockholm syndrome.” This is one example why a merge would be a wrong move. --Sadi Carnot 16:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, that convinces me. Henson's work might not have had much of a professional or scientific impact (often the fate of work in evolutionary psychology) but his well-publicised opposition to cults in general and to the Scientologists in particular is part based on the concept of capture bonding, and so is relevant material to show the general impact of the concept. Do you have references for the use of capture bonding as a concept in ethology? (sorry, I detest the term "animal psychology"!) This rather goes against the normal description of capture bonding as an adaptive human trait. Personally, I don't believe it is a uniquely human trait, although humans would be expected to show it more strongly than other animals: my ideas would probably fall under the heading of original research though, as I have not published (and have no intention to publish) in this field. Physchim62 (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- No references off the top of my head in ethology, I’m spread pretty thin presently with other projects to search for this. I have, however, grown rather fond of the term animal psychology. Heini Hediger’s 1955 book on The Psychology and Behavior of Animals, for example, led to the well-known idiom of personal space, and others. Alfred Binet’s 1888 book on the Psychological Life of Micro-Organisms is kind of interesting as well. P.S. I’ve posted notice on the said issue here. Talk later: --Sadi Carnot 09:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn’t seem like I’m getting much help at the admin notice board nor at the admin 3RR? Being that I have now posted six RfCs, three of which were at different project pages, and your page and at User:Happy Camper, and that I have expended large amounts of energy trying to find reference after reference to support my clean up efforts, I would now support an AfD nomination by you. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 11:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Given the current confused mess the article is in, I also support deletion. It isn't like someone who is interested can't find information outside of Wikipedia. Keith Henson 17:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Crown of Aragon and Kingdom of Aragon
They are not the same. You can check it in their very pages. Toniher 17:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Very true, but that wasn't the edit that you made. From a reader's point of view, you simply changed "Aragon" (correct throughout the period discussed in English usage, even though more precision could be given) to "Principality of Catalonia" (not always correct throughout the period discussed, although more precise for some periods). 18:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Aragon was linking to Kingdom of Aragon, which was untrue. So, I changed it to Principality of Catalonia, which was the jurisdiction of most of the territories just before the Treaty of the Pyreenees, I assume you know. After your reaction (which I lament from being disproportionate and harsh, especially being you an admin), I added a clarification for those people who may not know the distinction between the Kingdom of Aragon and the Crown of Aragon. Best regards Toniher 19:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Valencia (autonomous community)
If you wish to call for mediation, that is fine with me, and I will participate in whatever way I can. However, I fail to see the need for such an action, on any of the issues being discussed. My request for semi-protection pertains exclusively to the reiterated deletion of a phrase regarding the synonymity of Catalan and Valencian. No other registered user, not even Maurice27, disagrees with that (and if he does, or did in the past, it is not him who has been constantly deleting the phrase). Only one [or two] anonymous user disagrees, and based on his actions and language, his edits can be described as nothing else but vandalism. Why do we need to request for mediation on that particular issue if we all agree, and we are dealing with vandalism?
What other issue is irresolvable to the point of requesting external mediation? The issue of the dimensions of the flag? I invited all users to express their opinions and bring their sources and arguments, and I did a little research myself. Arguably, mediation works when there is willingness to talk, but no consensus is reached. Yet, no other single user, neither those involved in the edit war, nor those external to it but willing to help out, participated in the debate, but [fortunately?] edit wars on that particular issue stopped. Oh, by the way, I might be mistaken, but even in that edit war, only Maurce27 contended the use of the 1:2 flag, two registered and one anonymous user continuously reverted his edits. --the Dúnadan 14:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK. I think we have a problem here. I don't understand neither your position as an editor nor your position as an administrator, given the ambiguity of your own actions and comments, unless you want to push the issue yourself to justify a request for mediation:
- First, the anon 86.139.190.117 edits were identical to 86.129.90.106. I assumed they were two editors, you, said they were not. "Yes, it is the same editor (as far as anyone can be sure)", you said. Given the history of 86.129.90.106 and his violent response, you know he/she is a vandal. His actions are detrimental to the project, and he does not wish to debate but to insult. You already know that, unless you want to recant and now assume that we are dealing with two different anon editors.
- Secondly, even if that wasn't the case, the issue of Catalan vis-à-vis Valencian has been thoroughly discussed here, and most importantly, by Academic circles who have agreed, based on rigorous research they are both one and the same language. Per both WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiable, this is a claim that Wikipedia should state (the facts) while at the same time having a section to speak of the political and social issues of both names. You even told Mountolive: "Tomorrow morning I shall be lecturing all the inhabitants of Capellades as to how they speak a dialect of Valencian, with the AVL to back me up.", to justify the inclusion of the phrase "as Valencian is known in this territory" (i.e. Catalonia). So, that speaks that you do believe in the unity of the language... at least in Catalonia (but not in Valencia??). Yet, you revert me (in an implicit support) of the anons [vandal] edits.
- If you truly wish to reopen this debate, fine, but I think is unnecessary: it is not up to us to decide whether the two languages are the same (nor up to PP politicians) but to linguists, who have already agreed on that. But do me a favor: tell me exactly what is your position on this matter, as an editor, and as administrator. None of us is a neutral editor, that I know. But at least my position and actions are not ambiguous.
- --the Dúnadan 18:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- My position as an administrator is quite simple: I am in it up to my neck and my efforts to resolve (even partially) the disputes have not been effective. For many weeks I have been asking other admins to take a look at the situation: most have refused, saying that there is already an admin in there (i.e., me) and that my decisions will be respected. I have finally managed to get some experienced admins to look at what is happening, and they have advised me to go for mediation if I feel that I can no longer correctly administrate the article (which has been my feeling for a long time, I have taken the choice of editing rather than administrating).
- As for my positions as an editor, they should be fairly clear: I am for the inclusion of Comunidad Valenciana in the header of the infobox, and against the the contentious phrase in the lead section. I refuse to descend as far as insulting the editors who do not agree with me on these points, whatever they themselves do. I have a certain number of suspicions, but the discussion can only advance if everyone assumes good faith. This is not a war, it is an honest difference of opinions. Other editors (not yourself) would be wise to remember that. Physchim62 (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Psychim, I have to say, as an administrator of another wiky myself, that I disagree with your approach to solve this issue. Not with requesting mediation per se, but with how you are mixing three unrelated issues in one. I am more than willing to have a civil debate, and in fact I have asked you and all other users to debate. But besides reverting the "contentious phrase", you have not answered my questions at all. You haven't told me why it is that you consider this phrase to be contentious, when you yourself supported its inclusion in Catalonia? Moreover who are the current contending parties regrading this particular issue (i.e. the "contentious phrase")?Maurce27 and Montoulive and Casaforra abandoned the debate long ago (and only Maurice27 opposed the phrase). The only contending parties remaining are an anon vandal an me (an you, who now seem to support the anon user). Well, if it is only you and me, why don't you, at least, put some effort into trying to explain or justify your actions, ambiguous as they are, after I have asked you three times, in three different articles to do so? Mediation makes sense, to me, when two parties have exhausted all other means, and when both parties have a clear of understanding of the other parties point of view, even if they fully disagree with him/her. But I don't even know what you think! In some of your edits and comments you seem to agree with the unity of the language, while in others you seem to disagree. How are we supposed to conduct a civil debate like that? Should we just be willing to have an external editor figure it out, who will then issue an irrevocable opinion to which we have to adhere? I am not an uncivil editor unwilling to debate, and my history of contributions are a proof to that. I wish you had put that "effort" into answering my questions and concerns.--the Dúnadan 15:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- You are welcome to criticize my administration of the article—I do so myself. However I cannot see that continued discussion on the talk page is a viable solution. These issues have been discussed at length, both in terms of time and in terms of number of kilobytes. Arguments have been put forward by both sides but we have not been able to find a compromise. The recent edits by anonymous users are a result of the disputes (which leave the article in a pitiful state), not the cause of them! In so far as mediation would allow editors to calmly present their full arguments, I think it would be helpful. I certainly can't see that it would do any harm! Physchim62 (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, if all editors calmly present their arguments, it would be helpful and will do no harm. But that includes you. The issue that triggered your request for mediation was that of the inclusion of the phrase of Catalan/Valencian, and the only editors involved in that "edit-war" were an anonymous user, me, and then you,, when you reverted me, with no explanation whatsoever. I have already presented my arguments, and I do expect you to do so. --the Dúnadan 15:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
If you don't think you arguments will stand up to indepenant scrunity, then you should reject mediation, that is obvious. Physchim62 (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you are saying. I do believe my arguments will stand up to independent scrutiny. I am simply asking you to present your arguments. I have told you this before, mediation makes sense when all other means have failed. The first step is to have the parties discuss the issue amongst themselves. The parties on this particular issue ("as Catalan is known") is you, an anonymous user an me. That is why I first objected when you mixed up three different issues when you requested mediation. I am tired of asking you to discuss the issue and to present your arguments. --the Dúnadan 16:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Physchim, do you still want me to sign up in the RfM or, given the lack of enthusiasm -to put it mildly- shown there so far, you'd rather drop the whole thing? If you want to revive this, I'll have no problem to sign up. I indeed think that some external POV could be of help in the mentioned matters, given the fact that the discussion page seems to go in circles. However, if, as it seems now, no one else is going to sign and you think it would be in vain, then I'll skip it.
I am rather slow these days, and I may continue to, so don't take this as an invitation to re-start the whole thing, but more as a support to your initiative, which I think is good willed, as usual.
Mountolive (can't see the 'signing tilde' in this keyboard)
BTW, as far as I'm concerned -quite a lot- I'm slightly upset because you wrote somewhere that you don't think that the anon vandals are Maurice or Mountolive...WTF should I? I didn't think that I had a good reputation out there, but I never thought it would be as bad as to be taken as a suspected vandal...., well,I'm not a woman, but, as you see, I can get sensitive :P
TfD nomination of Template:BaixSegura
Template:BaixSegura has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — SueHay 14:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
CSD I8
I was hoping that you might clarify your position vis-a-vis the creation of image description pages for Commons media not on WP, per the recent development at our previous discussion. Cheers, TewfikTalk 02:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I will intervene on that page, and probably not in the way that you want me to ;) If people really want to fight for the small number of en:wp description pages, we will not eliminate them. Do they do any harm? They make work, but otherwise probably not. Do they serve a purpose? I don't think so, but do they do any harm? Let's work on trying to find a consensus which somehow accomodates these rare cases (which should never be subject to speedy deletion anyway, IMHO, as "important" images, in many cases featured). This question WILL be resolved, one way or the other, but not today it seems. Physchim62 (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thallium triiodide
I have details of the structure reference and will put together an article, as this a strange animal with some good chemistry principles even if it will never become a best seller. What I am sure will come from this is a nice discussion on redox potentials of Thallium and Iodine. I only hope I can remember it all. Thanks for reading the stuff by the way. cheersAxiosaurus 16:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- In my mind it is a beautiful compound which tells you that you can never be sure of everything! That in itself it a very good thing to teach inorganic chemists. Obviously, I will have a look at the article that you write, and I thank you for taking on the challenge! Physchim62 (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Done- well at least first stab. I would really appreciate if you could check the redox stuff- I last used this a lifetime away. I would like to see some more meat on the reduction potential article that showed how half cell potentials can be used- what do you think? Axiosaurus 16:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Just in case...
Hi, Physchim62
I read your sentence in the Talk:Valencia (autonomous community):
- I would be willing to block the user who habitually uses the term "blaverist". Physchim62 (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
And I'm afraid you were pointing at me. :-/
I don't understand why you would block me. Specially if you compare my editions and my comments on the talk pages with another user you previously blocked, Maurice27: I don't use to insult or laugh at others, my edits are explained in the talk pages and when they are regarding debatable subjects I try to reach a consensus.
I guess you are meaning I use to revert anon users (only two) who repeatedly erase the famous sentence about Valencian (as Catalan is known...). In order to say the reason for that reversion I use to write rev Blaverist vandalism.
And now I'll repeat my use of the word Blaverist:
- 15:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC):
- I am who is reverting anon users whose only purpose is erasing the word Catalan or removing any mention that Valencian is a part of the Catalan language.
- I'd encourage those anons to log in to the wp and explain the reasons to do so. Otherwise, and since their only edits are deletions, I revert them.
- As far as I remember there was a debate in this talk page about that sentence (as Catalan is known...), and we looked to agree. I guess it's a duty of every user to maintain the consensued edition unless a proper debate is re-opened and a new agreement is reached. That's what I am doing.
- Btw, if there's any POV attack (which Mountolive seems to intend that's what I'm doing) I'd say the blaverist editions ARE a POV attack. With one main difference:
- The fact that Valencian and Catalan are the same language is a scientifical truth. No matter if blaverists believe otherwise or pro-Spaniards-Frenchies feel uncomfortable.
- Do you want a POV attack proof? Here you have it:
- The previous attempts of removing any mention to País Valencià and its proper translation into English. This has one word: Censorship.
- It doesn't matter if we like, prefear or hate terms such as PV, Regne de València, Comunitat Valenciana or Levante feliz. We are here to explain them.
- So, in one word, I'll keep reverting editions that remove that sentence until a new debate about it happens to reach a consensus. In the meanwhile, or until a new agreement happens, I'll keep regarding that kind of editions as vandalism.
- 08:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC):
- PD: By the way, just in case, when I add the adjective Blaverist I intend no offence. It's not an insult, it's just a political point of view as good as any other. In my opinion its only problem is that they claim ascientifical reasons to differ as much as possible from Catalans. I could remind many examples of communities sharing a language but differing in politics: Belgium and Switzerland in regard with France, for instance.
In my opinion, Blaverist POV users are welcome to the wp as far as they debate and work to explain their POVs so that the articles they feel concerned are more complete. But they can't (they shouldn't) log in as anonyms, insult, and remove whatever they don't like or disagree.
We all have political ideas in our real lifes, but we (me, at least) are not in the wp to convince everybody else we are right and all the others are wrong. The more we can do is explain there are different political sides and explain their own reasons.
So, Blaverists parties, ideologies and claims should ALSO appear in the wp. They want to believe Valencian is a different language than Catalan? Ok, so a explanation about that claim should appear in the wp. And actually it is, in the Valencian article.
But they have no right, nobody has (even less me), to erase the consensued work, the fair explanations and, more important, the scientifical truths!
Are they disturbed by that sentence (as Catalan is known...)? It's their problem. That sentence is a truth. Are Catalan independentists or nationalists disturbed by a sentence such as the Catalan autonomous community is in Spain? Ok, it's their problem. But they can't remove that sentence, because it's true.
(Btw, if you want to check it, please, do it, but you won't find any such edit by me)
So, my claims are:
- the adjective Blaverist is not derogatory. Actually, they use it.
- the fact that Valencian is Catalan should be in the lead. (The Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua recognizes it, and all Valencian universities say their language is Catalan in their own Statutes)
- Reversing those two anon users is not censorship because their claims are already properly explained. Actually, I'd tag their edits are vandalism because they lie, give non-scientifical sources, and erase whatever they don't like.
That's all, I gave you my reasons.
Instead of making subtle threats I'd prefear you warned me on my talk page. I regard you as a fair admin, no matter our POVs about not so relevant but different subjects.
Yours, --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 14:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Smithsonian
Template:Smithsonian has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Abu badali (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
- I assume you have had much more experience with this topics than I have. I can't speak for the rest, but I didn't sign the petition because I was waiting for you to give your opinions, both as a party and as an administrator, who, arguably, would've worked toward reaching a consensus. Maurice27 came up with sources, and even though I do not fully agree with its use (I've read it all), at least it is a source, and in the absence of any other, in my opinion, it was a valid source.
- Everybody else has responded by now, but edit wars have restarted. I would have appreciated your contributions and insights within the discussion, but I assume you had a valid reason not to do it. I am open to discuss with you the possibility of working together, as admins (even if it is from different wikipedias) towards reaching a consensus, even if we both need to compromise on some areas. If both of us work together, especially given that we have different (and even opposing) points of view, and eventually reach a consensus, we might be able to bring others to accept it, and even set a precedent of good-will and hard work towards NPOV. If it fails, then I am more than willing to back you up in your request for mediation.
- --the Dúnadan 17:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm considering what should be done next on each of the three points I raised, and I'm sure we can work together on these and other ameliorations. I am a little short of wikitime at the moment (I may have to urgently return to Catalonia for family reasons, among other time-shortages), but I am going to take a look at what has happened on the affected articles now and I shall be on wiki on Monday (CEST) with a few more proposals (and, I hope, a referenced article on Blaverism, fascinating subject that it is!) Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
wikimisery
Hi Physchim.
As the administrator you are, I thought of you regarding Mr. Bouvila. He is one of the worst editors I have ever seen (only second to another which I won't even mention for fear of taking him out of his self imposed retirement, you don't know him anyway...lucky you!).
I can -hardly- deal with selfrighteous nationalists who come to wikipedia to mimick the same story they are told at the local ERC, CUP, whatever club. Well, actually each time I have more and more trouble in dealing with these -to put it mildly- "editors in a rather weak reasoning", and that is why I am retreating from wikipedia, slowly but surely. However, insulting such as in [6] is probably a bit too much and I should always have some spare time to enter wikipedia and denounce it.
You have more examples of his finesse here [7]
Since you are an administrator, please tell me: why wikipedia has to deal and compromise with this kind of intellectual misery? isn't it self evident that 3.14 hours blocks won't work nor are the right answer?
Damn, they are stubbornly confiming the odd reflections made from the Nietzschean cliffs [8], aren't they?...
Mountolive
- Hey! That's me.
- Actually, my attitude towards Mountolive has a reason. Well, more than one. But here you can see few examples of how he keeps an aggressive attitude against me all the time. This, is why I acted so:
- Here he insulted me when I was just trying to discuss an issue about the Crown of Aragon article.
- Here, here he insulted me, and my family.
- Here he changed "Catalan" to "Catalonian". I would like to comment three things about this: first of all, I did not write Catalonian there, it was someone else. And anyway, as you can see here, Catalonian is correct too. And finally, in addition he was not right with his revert, he stated "I think you would like to know that the adjective for Catalonia is Catalan...Jesus, gives us patience...", which is clearly sarcastic.
- So all in all, I guess it is understandable that I called him "fucktard". I'm so sorry and stuff, but anyway, I still think the same of him.
- By the way, as proved above, if "Catalonian" is also correct, I don't understand why do you revert my edit, Physchim.
- And about the other edit this guy mentions here, it was just a joke, since the other user kept reverting the edits I did to the article, so I kept adding them. Onofre Bouvila 18:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I refer you both (myself, I'm an atheist) to the wise words at the top of my talk page. Physchim62 (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Physchim, as you can see in my talk page, there is more people ready to engage in official action agains the oversensitive guy (apparently he thinks he can say "you fucktard" to me but I can't say that he -and myself- we are not with the smartest wikipedians....and insulting his family?? I'd laugh if the accusation wasn't that grave...)
- If you are not willing to promote this official scrutiny of his edits (your answer above is too cryptic for someone not that smart as myself :P), I would appreciate, for the sake of the community, that you let me know how to proceed and whom to address: it is high time for someone to come to terms with his own actions.
- Thank you in advance,
Mountolive.
- PS. I read somewhere that you had to come to Catalonia for urgent family reasons: I hope everything is ok. Warm regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 09:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
Yes, I've seen the comment on your talk page. This was the combination of mine and his responses to your previous question. Physchim62 (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- 24 hour block issued. Physchim62 (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Why the hell do you block me? So the reason to block me is because I removed your "civility warning" from my talk page? Well, I use to remove or archive the old topics from my talk page, but that has nothing to do with you.
If I had been "uncivil" after you had written that in my talkpage, I could understand that you had blocked me for having broken your request of being civil. But this wasn't the case; I kept a civil attitude (I didn't even do any comment anywhere).
In addition to that, I came here and I replied this topic, so I did not ignore your warning.
So I not only fulfilled your request, but I also came here and posted here to make you sure that I had heard you.
Therefore, what's the point of blocking me? You could have blocked me for ignoring your "civility warning" and being "uncivil", but as I said I not only kept a "civil" attitude but I also came here to reply you. So then what's the point with what you did? Since when it's punished to remove a "civility warning" from one's talk page? And if it's so, why didn't you warn me that I could not remove your post from my talk page? As far as I know, one can manage one's talk page talk page however one wants. Onofre Bouvila 14:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hello? Could you justify your block, please? Onofre Bouvila 14:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Main page images from the Commons
Hello! For {{c-uploaded}} images, there's no need to change the filename (provided that the image file itself is the same). This only breaks the link to the Commons description page. Thanks! —David Levy 19:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hint: the last time I tried to do this, there seemed to be a problem of priority between the two versions, so I went for a "safe" solution this time! Physchim62 (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Capellades_(location_Anoia).png
Thank you for uploading Image:Capellades_(location_Anoia).png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MER-C 10:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Colloque Wikipédia 2007
Hi PC, there is a short conference in Paris in October on Wikipedia and academia. Do you fancy going? It's a lot closer for you than Taipei! I'm planning on going, mainly to talk about the Wikipedia 1.0 stuff and also fact-checking/assessment (the French WP is now using the WP:Chem assessment scheme!). A lot of the 1.0 people will be there, since the CD was produced by a French publisher with French help - a veritable Entente Cordiale! It'd be great to meet up with you if you're available. Walkerma 17:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- In principle, yes, but I am trying to sort our Turin as well (if that is going to be useful, don't know yet). I am not sure which country I will be living in October either, but hell, life's too short to worry about such details! Physchim62 (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- If my "professional commitments" (Ha!) allow me, count me in. Physchim62 (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
NOCl is an anhydride?
Re your comment "NOCl is in no way an anhydride of any nature, and certainly not an acid anhydride)"
- HCl + HONO --> ClNO + H2O
--Smokefoot 22:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, but under that definition sodium chloride is an anhydride too! So I'm with you, PC! Walkerma 02:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is just one example of why the concept of "acid anhydride" in inorganic chemistry is not particularly useful. Acidic oxide is a more useful (and more rigorously defined) concept. One day (maybe) students will stop being worried when I explain that sulfurous acid does not exist... Physchim62 (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, but under that definition sodium chloride is an anhydride too! So I'm with you, PC! Walkerma 02:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Physchim62. After having created this (short) article, I have remarked that it is linked on one of your userpages. As I am not a native speaker and this is not my “home Wikipedia”, there might be some stylistic or other flaws in the article. It would be great, if you could quickly proofread it. Thanks. --Leyo 16:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Catalonia
Given the extremely low ratio of administrators vis-à-vis users, and in lack of any other administrator involved in the ongoing discussion, I ask you to please take the time to exercise your prerogatives as an administrator despite agreeing with Maurice27's POV (perhaps being neutral is another of my "weird ideas" of adminship). The reiterated insults, swearing and improper behavior of Maurice27 continue to go unnoticed and unpunished. --the Dúnadan 22:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Frankly, I'm fed up with the lot of you. The editors on these pages are not interested in writing an encyclopedia, merely on scoring political points. Take the matter to ArbCom (or would you prefer that I do so?). Physchim62 (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I resent your comment. I am not Catalan, and I have no political interest whatsoever in "scoring points". And a quick review to my history and quality of contributions which include a vast array of topics will prove you otherwise. My interest in having articles substantiated in statutory and constitutional definitions is as "political" as yours in opposing them. If you with to take it to ArbCom, that would be fine with me. --the Dúnadan 15:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- A one week block for Maurice27 was perhaps a strict decision. Yet, I have to say that I disagree with you in suggesting that all users involved in the "edit war" be blocked. You have to admit that no other user of the five who oppose him has resorted to abusive language, personal attacks, and no one has ever violated 3RR. Even if he is "quite a character", he is driving out otherwise good-intention editors with his attitude and the leniency he has received from administrators. --the Dúnadan 15:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- All editors in this conflict have received a large degree of discretion from me in my administrative role, yourself (and myself) included. Maurice has received multiple warnings, mostly from me (if he didn't blank his talk page so often, this would be more visible). As an editor, he should know what he is/was risking. However, controlling him seems to have gone beyond what can be reasonably imposed by admins, especially if we wish to promote (I would say institute) reasonable discussion on articles concerning the Paisos catalans. Rendez-vous at WP:RFAr? Physchim62 (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- I understand. If you wish to request for arbitration you have my full support. --the Dúnadan 15:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support and understanding: I don't see that I have much choice! I will attempt to phrase the request in such a manner as not to aggrevate the situation: I think that there are real (i.e., non-content) issues which ArbCom could usefully take a look at. Physchim62 (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- All editors in this conflict have received a large degree of discretion from me in my administrative role, yourself (and myself) included. Maurice has received multiple warnings, mostly from me (if he didn't blank his talk page so often, this would be more visible). As an editor, he should know what he is/was risking. However, controlling him seems to have gone beyond what can be reasonably imposed by admins, especially if we wish to promote (I would say institute) reasonable discussion on articles concerning the Paisos catalans. Rendez-vous at WP:RFAr? Physchim62 (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Maurice27's block
While there is edit warring going on by several editors on that article, he was the only one I saw engaging in heavy personal attacks, etc. If you can provide diffs of other's doing the same, I'll deal out similar blocks. As far as DR goes, I have to say that as a member of MedCom, I see little hope for this in mediation. ^demon[omg plz] 15:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Why did you block me??
Hello? Why did you block me? Since when removing a civility warning from one's talk page is something that deserves a block? You did not even communicate my block to my talk page. I am stil waiting for a justification of your abusive attitude as admin. You not only block for no reason but you also ignore people's requests of justification! Onofre Bouvila 20:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- You were blocked for repeated civility violations: if you carry on in the line you are takng, you will be blocked again. If you do not wish to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, then we shall make sure that you do not prevent others from contributing. Physchim62 (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- That is absolutely false.
- You posted a "civility warning" in my talk page.
- That was the only time that you posted there, ever, for this issue.
- My reaction to that, was to come here to ask what happened.
- We discussed it here, and when the discussion ended, without any result, I removed the civility warning from my talk page, because I use to archive / remove old conversations in my talk page.
- Automatically, wen you saw I had removed the civility warning, you blocked me for a 24 hour period.
- Your block was absolutely illegitimate, for various reasons:
- The way you did it:
- The reason you gave to block me was: "Yes, I've seen the comment on your talk page. This was the combination of mine and his responses to your previous question.". And few minutes later, you posted "24 hour block issued".
- All this information was posted in your own talk page, and talking to another user.
- You did not communicate to me that you had blocked me. I did not see that you had blocked me until, few days later the block had expired, I came to your talk page, and saw that you had said that you had blocked me.
- In addition, by not communicating me that I was blocked, you did not allow me to ask other admins to review my block.
- The reasons why you did it:
- It is not stated anywhere in this Wikipedia that an user cannot remove stuff from his talk page.
- You neither told me not to remove that stuff.
- I accepted and fulfilled your request of having a civil attitude. Ignoring what I had done before (which was not much), since the moment you told me that, I kept a civil attitude.
- I also lost my time coming here to reply you, so there is no possible way to say that I ignored your request.
- In all, your block was just full of irregularities. It was not a normal admin block, but rather a thoughtless decission that you took without following any kind of procedure. You just decided that I had to be blocked because you might think that removing the civility warning that you had posted in my talk page was some kind of lack of respect towards you. But it is frankly stupid to think that way, because of the reasons I've explained above.
- And since you realized that you had comitted an enormous mistake, that you had used your admin powers despotically, you just repeatedly ignored the requests that I did to you in your own talk page, where I asked you why had you blocked me (this one, and this one), adding to your unjustified attitude towards me, a high grade of arrogance.
- In addition, you are threatening me. Read well what I wrote:
- "Hello? Why did you block me? Since when removing a civility warning from one's talk page is something that deserves a block? You did not even communicate my block to my talk page. I am stil waiting for a justification of your abusive attitude as admin. You not only block for no reason but you also ignore people's requests of justification!".
- Where do you see a lack of respect here? Where do you see that I "keep" an uncivil attitude? Honestly, you are the one being uncivil: "if you carry on in the line you are takng, you will be blocked again" ... which line I am takng? And why do you threaten me? "If you do not wish to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, then we shall make sure that you do not prevent others from contributing" ... oh, "we". This sounds to me more like a street gang threatening a poor pedestrian, than an admin giving wise advices to a poor Wikipedian. Go to my user page and see the articles I've created. Isn't that a positive contribution?
- Look: I am not being uncivil; it is you, the one being disrespectful with me. And I am not ignoring your requests of being civil; I am fulfilling them. And it is rather you, who are not only ignoring my requests of justification for the actions you carried out against me, but also threatening me with new repressive measures. Onofre Bouvila 16:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, hello, hello, my friend "Phys, chim, 62"... I see you are back from your lethargy, but you have dared to reply newer issues in your talk page, instead of giving me an explanation when, in fact, I am asking for it since much before these people to whom you are replying.
- So, could you, please, counter-argument the issues that I exposed above?
- Because otherwise, I will be morally forced to ask it again and again in your talk page, until you give me a good explanation for what I consider and have sufficiently proved that represents this abuse of power that you comitted against me. . 18:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to leave as many messages as you like. You're in a hole, and I don't see why I should stop you from digging! Physchim62 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely, with comments like this, you show that you are unable to counter my argumentation. You did not follow any kind of procedure at time to block me, and you adopted an arrogant and fascist attitude. And now, you just have no arguments to justify what you did.
- If I did not have better things to do than editing Wikipedia, I would report you so you would lose your adminship and you would probably be blocked in response to your abuse of power.
- But, luckily for you, I have no time to waste with this discussion.
- So, in all, you are in evidence: you comitted an abuse of power and you just cannot justify what you did. Ridiculous. Simply ridiculous.
- But it's not strange from you. Reading your talk page, and having seen how you have been previously enganged in personal attacks and other civility issues, what you did to me is just another step in your despotic adminship. Just another step in your evil and malignant path.
- Pathetic. . 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Away
Hi PC, I just wanted to let you know that I'll be away from home till Friday, though I hope to be able to help again with gold book work before Friday. I've been putting together a three hour workshop on wikis, a lot of work! I thought I should mention it, so you don't think you're just talking to yourself! All the best, Walkerma 13:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have seen your abstracts, very worthy work! You're not willing to release a GFDL poster version which we could plagiarize (or translate for Paris)? ;) Physchim62 (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: RfM for Valencia (autonomous community)
Is this what you're looking for? ^demon[omg plz] 02:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly, thank-you very much! :) Physchim62 (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Energy (chemistry)
I notice that you have some how deleted the Energy (chemistry) article and redirected all links to it to Energy. In essence you have deleted my article. May I know, why you did so. If you wanted to add chemical energy to the energy article, you could have done so even without deleting the Energy (Chemistry article, which included much more information than that you have provided in Chemical energy. The Energy (chemistry still remains in the Energy (diambiguation) page. I think your edits are totally irrational and unfair.Hallenrm 07:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- I certainly haven't deleted Energy (chemistry): it is still there, along with all your edits (see page history. You decided to remove the proposed deletion tag, as is your right, I decided that the page would be better as a redirect, as is my right. There is nothing "irrational or unfair" about it. You may feel that my edits are irrational, but then I feel that yours are! In physics, chemistry, earth sciences, cosmology, scientists are talking about the same thing when they speak of energy: to attempt to split the page like that is to deny an important scientific reality. Physchim62 (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I read the post at the help desk and would like to try to offer an observation. The Prod stated "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason." Hallenrm removed the prod, apparently objecting to the deletion of the article. The page then was "merged to energy" (as stated in the edit summary) 12 hours later. Per Help:Merging and moving pages, mergers typically require consensus or silence typically after five days of posting a merge notice. I think it would be appropriate to restore the Energy (chemistry) page and either list it for AfD as mentioned in the prod, propose a merge per Help:Merging and moving pages, come to an agreement between yourselves on how to proceed, or post the matter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy to see what that WikiProject suggests. -- Jreferee (Talk) 04:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for trying to help, Jreferee, but the article is not deleted. Any user can revert my edit, that is the nature of a wiki (although I will take it to AfD if an article is placed at this name). As you mention, the prod tag says "You may remove this message if you improve the article": Hallernrm did nothing to improve the article when he/she removed the tag. As I am not allowed to re-prod an article, I took one other the other options open to me, which was to merge. Physchim62 (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Dear Physchim62, you say "I certainly haven't deleted Energy (chemistry): it is still there, along with all your edits (see page history.". But that is a totally false statement, what is there is your edit to the Energy page under the subtitle Chemical Energy. It appears you are bent upon mischief, just to settle scores with me. By the way, Energy (disambiguation) page still has a link to Energy (Chemistry) which noew mysteriously leads to Energy page, which is grossly misleading. I do hope that you will follow the wikietiquette, if you are an admin or aspiring to become one.Hallenrm 07:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Physchim,
You say "Any user can revert my edit, that is the nature of a wiki (although I will take it to AfD if an article is placed at this name)." But I could not do it. So please revert your edit. And Then Do what You want, and in future be careful of the rules on wiki and don't try to jump in haste. I would also like to take the matter for arbitrationHallenrm 17:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you would like to modify your above comments in the light of this edit (made just four minutes after you left the message above). If you wish to take the matter to arbitration, you will find all the necessary details at WP:RFAr. Physchim62 (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Please move this back to boron oxide. There is no BO3 compound, other than the cell. -lysdexia 08:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:PD-Old regime Iraq
Template:PD-Old regime Iraq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. 15:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Opium
Thanks for acting so quickly to resolve the status of the Opium article. I'm glad to hear that it has a chance to be A-class, so if there's anything I can do to help please let me know. Mike Serfas 15:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Matero escut.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Matero escut.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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 03:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Piera (escut).gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Piera (escut).gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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 03:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bandera Sant Feliu de Codines.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bandera Sant Feliu de Codines.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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 03:58, 4 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 Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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 04:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Escut Sant Feliu de Codines.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Escut Sant Feliu de Codines.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia 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 04:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
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
- 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)
The valencian flag... again...
Hey buddy, between beer and beer, would you mind taking a look at this [[9]]. 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)
- ^ McJunckins, Linda (2006). From Princess to Prisoner. Salem Communications. ISBN 1600342884.