User talk:Owdki/Archive Dec 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] RE:Re:Amazed again

I tought I would receive a response that would focus on how we could make Wikipedia better, like I proposed, and not on purported accusations -yet again- on how we are all hyperbiased and Catalanist. I truly regret that, since I did look forward to working with you. I've had extremely positive experiences with users with whom I strongly, strongly disagree, in that we worked together to create several articles form divergent positions, and at the end we both congratulated each other for the outcome. We focused on the article, not on ourselves, and we did a good research on the subjects.

Even if I was a Catalanist -which I'm not- and even if you are a Españolista -which I don't know- the peaceful working of both or more parties into a single neutral article is what makes a good encyclopedia. That is what I offered you on my previous post. That is what I offer at wp:ca, wp:es, wp:fr and all other wp's where I work. Catalonia is only a small fraction of my edits -most of them are actually on other areas such as Economics, History, and LA studies. If you decide to change your mind and want to focus on articles instead of bringing -yet again- spurious accusations, I am more than open to it. Until then... fins després.

--the Dúnadan 15:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Memorandum of understanding

Hi, I invite you to read this and participate if willing. Cheers, --Maurice27 21:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] you are good, Grandmaster Emo

Hey, as you may have noticed already, I made some edits at the intro of Països Catalans trying to improve the whole thing.

As per your comments somewhere in that talk page of splitting the article in two articles, one for the politic concept the other for the cultural one, while being perfectly logic, I think that, actually, we are giving already more than enough attention to the concept (after all, no one really seems to care about it!) as it is now. Making two articles in the English edition of wikipedia about...er...a-hem...excuse me....nuttin' is already too much, dont you think? ;)

So I'd rather keep it all in one, but making a clear distinction between both concepts which are not clearly distinguished as it is now.

Anyway, the above is not the point of this message. What I really wanted to say is that you made great searches (you are good!) which quite expand the landscape there.

So, my edits on the intro above are based on the popular (mis?)conception of this concept appearing during the renaixença mostly as a jocs florals thing and turning into a politic concept only by the second half of the 20th century.

Your sources (Roca i Farreras, Oliver) are proving that the above is, to say the least, relative. So, probably, it should be said something like "mostly during the renaixença period it had a cultural meaning only, but there was also a politic dimension of it back in the day" and then add those quotes.

Feel free to edit accordingly. I am not doing it myself because I am not familiar with these sources and, if I was challenged in this claim, the only thing I could add is...."well, Elmo said it"...

Thanks for your interesting contributions there (I was particularly keen on the "conceptual false friends" excerpt: very interesting).

Mountolive J'espère que tu t'es lavé les mains avant de me toucher 18:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I haven't forgotten you. I send you a Xmas card. But now... I'm lacking any enthusiasm. Yes. I'll answer you after a break. It's Nadal, men!!!! =P Best wishes! (and many thanks for ya words, M)
BTW1: nice work of consensus in the ETA definition.
BTW2: the "yes... I know" from the edit summary goes to your touch... I (still) am not a swellhead =P --Owdki talk 00:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christmas Card

Thanks! Watch your HTML though[1]. I've fixed them all for you. Let me know if you need anything, Prodego talk 02:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I wish you also Merry Christmas and all the best for the new year!!! (this includes discussions apassionants com ara sobre la catalanitat de les tortugues ratllades de les Pitiüses, en cas que existeixin ).--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy Holidays to you too. May the Spirit of Christmas bring about reconciliation in our many Wikipedian endeavors. --the Dúnadan 04:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks bonny lad, happy xmas 2 your own bad self.

Boynamedsue (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, Owdki

Hi, Owdki. No need to apologize, I wasn't really offended, just amazed (try to imagine yourself in an analogous situation: you arrive at a new place willing to do something good, and suddenly you discover that you are just another example of a boring stereotype...). Yes, indeed, it was clear that you were making fun (and complaining at the same time), not trying to offend anybody. Anyway, in just a few days taking a look about what is going on in Wikipedia in Catalonia-related topics (in the broadest sense), reading articles, discussion pages and talk pages (since but also before I decided to participate) I realized many interesting things about the stupidity of some of my catalan colleagues that believe (at least sometimes it seems so) they are on a mission from God, but also something similar in the opposite part, when some other people assume the task of stopping them at any cost. One can extract many interesting consequences about the present state of things in some south-western corners of Europe. But, leaving every possible motivation aside, we all are (should be) here to work seriously and accurately trying to reach this ideal so-called NPOV (if I have understood something about what Wikipedia should be). See ya! --Cnoguera (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

=P Thanks for your kind words, Cnoguera. The most important thing now is your will and your illusion: protect 'em. I'm sure you are here for share your knowledge and build an encyclopedia. Keep on. That's the fundamental. But... beware of the gates of hell, or you'll be catched by the catalan Mandelbrot maze, full of Byzantine dead-end streets and long discussions about "si una quimera que bordonea en el vacío puede comer las segundas intenciones" ;)
However, and trying to bring a drop of constructive critic, some of that "blindness" is reflected in some of your contributions, but I'll comment about your words expressed here only: you come from wp:ca. I cannot understand your surprise, as you say in the "new place" (wp:en), when you have already some experience in wp:ca. Haven't you seen any of those "many interesting things" there? There are "many interesting things" there, and some of them are being solved thanks to Dúnadan (I'm being sincere, Jimbo bless you, my friend), veeeeeery slowly and with a great effort. I have my opinion about the "opposite part". I'm in the "opposite part". I have my idea about what an encyclopedia is, but I don't want to bore you with my concerns nor discourage you. Quite the contrary, we'll agree unconditionally that we all are (should be) here to work seriously and accurately trying to improve the Wikipedia. Best wishes and happy editing.
PD: how many times have you heard "territoris de parla catalana"? ;) --Owdki talk 23:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi again, Owdki. First, thank you for deflowering my user talk page! ;) Well, I confess that my surprise was a little rhetoric (I know very well which are the political conflicts in my country(ies)). But what I didn't know is that I would find them so well represented in the wp:en (which, in a sense is a very good sign that means that all of our sensibilities have good people working on Wikipedia). In fact, my experience in wp:ca is still quite short and moreover I have been mostly working on non-political topics and antivandalism patrolling. Finally, since you are offering some free constructive criticism I wouldn't like to miss the opportunity to hear 'em from "the opposite" part ;). So, let me ask you: in what respects am I showing "blindness"? And, what is the problem with the expression "territoris de parla catalana"? I am not sure to catch your point (maybe you mean you prefer it to "Països Catalans" or the other way around?). Salut! --Cnoguera (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome! It has been my first experience! =D
Oh, man! Hahaha... =D Don't give me a nip!... "political conflicts in my country(ies)". Right now we should work a consensus about these words (I'm kidding). Currently I'm taking a break and this nice interchange is disturbing me (no t'ho prenguis malament, I need this break, and may be when I return this catalan Mandelbrot maze will have changed a little). I promise you that we'll continue it. We'll be in touch: keep on, good luck and happy editing!
PD (summarizing the explanation): "The most used term when any politic connotation wants to be avoided is "catalan-speaking territories" (El terme més utilitzat quan es vol evitar qualsevol connotació política és «territoris de parla catalana», from wp:ca), neutral language for neutral contentses (PPCC is politics). --Owdki talk 07:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Talk:Països Catalans has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Cometstyles 14:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of your comment

Interestingly enough, I find my name cited more often in other user talk pages than in mine, and people theorizing about my future actions. Anyway, I meant to ask you if there was a reason why you deleted your comment at Talk:Països Catalans, which included a link to a very interesting paper here? Usually, per WP:TALK, comments in discussion pages are not to be deleted or altered—not even by the author him/herself—but I wanted to know if there was a good reason why you chose to do so. I would reinsert it, but then, again, given the current situation, any action could be interpreted wrongly, so I rather err on the side of precaution.

Actually, I spent a couple of hours today to read the thesis you provided, and found it very informative. I wouldn't treat it as the ultimate source, but it is definitely a valid and reputable Academic source. I have always argued that the concept itself refers to a linguistic area and that some have attributed a national identity to that area, and even though the paper seemed to point into that direction, it also suggests that the interrelation between linguistics and national identity based in territoriality might be much more intertwined than I previously thought, even dating back to the Renaixença. It is indeed food for thought and discussion, and the source may well help in building the article, and even other articles. The challenge, I guess, is to use it without "misquoting" it based on my/our own a priori assumptions. I would be more than happy to discuss its contents with you.

Actually, on the most recent "round", I wasn't really concerned with the linguistics vis-a-vis nationalistic issue. I have not—and even less after reading the thesis—denied the political and nationalistic connotation of the term. My conflict with Mountolive had to do with attributing the diverse opinions to the appropriate actors; that is to say, a general weasel-like phrase "there is frequent opposition to the concept, notably in [all] territories described by this concept" is a little too vague and perhaps, conveniently ambiguous. There is both acceptance and opposition to the concept and its diverse connotations with varying degrees amongst the territories—opposition is much more stronger in the Valencian Community than in Catalonia—and by the diverse sectors of the society—opposition is stronger in the political arena than in the Academia; compare the opposing positions of the PP in the Valencian Community to that of the Universitat d'Alacant, just to give an example. A bystander in Barcelona will most probably reach a different conclusion regarding the social acceptance/rejection to the linguistic/nationalistic concept than a bystander in Valencia, as you would probably agree.

The issue is complex, true, but generalizations are, in my opinion, misleading, and adding a sentence or two in the introduction, in order to bring preciseness are worth the "extra length"—which I think is minimal. Moreover, we continue to expand the article in other sections and areas. I believe Cnoguera's comment in his talk page is pointing in the right direction by trying to avoid extremes while describing the concept in the most neutral way possible, without denying the diverse and opposing opinions.

Either way, I welcome your thoughts on both issues (the thesis and the "round") --the Dúnadan 01:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • 1. "I meant to ask you if there was a reason why you deleted your comment [...] I wanted to know if there was a good reason why you chose to do so". Yes, there was.
  • 2. There's a pending reply in the PPCC talk page, do you remember? Read it. That source is cited several times (and other ones very interesting, with some questions), repeatedly, in the PPCC talk page, in my past comments. And right now you're informing me that you haven't read my past comments, when surprisingly, they was discussions between you and me. I wrote: "I think we are spending our time here for nuttin". Ouch!
  • 3. If we want to work on it we need a good flow. That's the most important thing right now (remember Maurice's memorandum). Think about it. I do.
  • 4. We'll discusse PPCC there. My main concern is: PPCC ARE NOT the catalan-speaking territories (I think there are enough sources to prove it). And it is a cultural concept INSIDE a political context (the cultural side gets subdued by politics, ergo it's politics). And not only PPCC: Wikipedia is being utilised to spread the catalanist ideology, across the Catalan-related articles, Spain-related articles and... several wikiprojects. And it isn't hard to prove, you know it. Anyway, PPCC: I'll explain it, and I'll be waiting for your opinion. I'll try to avoid any mal rollo. Before wikipedians, persons. --Owdki talk 18:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
What can I say Owdki? You have a very strong POV and you want to impose it. Like I said, I don't deny that the concept carries a political connotation, but many other sources, mostly Academic, treat it as a linguistic source, and that you know very well too. You want to ignore the Academics, and defend your thesis that they are only political, instead of presenting all POVs, you want to present a POV, the one you agree with. I'm getting tired of this game. Seems that NPOV for this article is wishful thinking. Cheers mate, --the Dúnadan 01:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
What can I say Dúnadan? I could say "and you... and you... you... and you have an horrible haircut".
But I prefer to say: don't worry about me, my very strong POV or my will to impose. Defend "a capa i espasa" the NPOV and we'll meet in the same point. If you defend "a capa i espasa" any other thing, may be you'll see me as you've described here.
I try to find neutral sources and references, and when it is not possible I point it up. That's why we have discussed and I never have brought you Losantos, Libertad Digital, de Diego, Moa, de la Cierva o compañía (extremely easy to find). May be you haven't noticed this. Im very selective looking for NPOV references. You're very selective too... but... for what? Best. --Owdki talk 18:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I am, pleasantly, surprised by your comment [except for the link to the Catalan wiki, which, to be honest, I don't know the point of it, or what you meant by it, if it was an indirecta]. Your selection of sources is duly noted and appreciated. Hopefully, we will meet in the same point as we both defend NPOV. Thank you indeed for not responding in an escalating manner. Cheers mate, --the Dúnadan 00:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
And... thank you for descalate the situation, even with the link. Cheers.
BTW please, could you spend some time thinking about the Catalan people article? I see those "ethnic" references as excluding asseverations. What do you think? --Owdki talk 03:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] (Re) Some Reflexions

Me parece que ha sido un malentido por ambas partes. Yo no entendí tu mensaje y tu no mi respuesta. Luego pensé que el "manah manah" era para "cachondeo general del espectador" y de ahí mi "tuuuu tuuu tututu"... Y para colmo tu "Keep alone with your fights" me sonó a un "ahí te quedes gilip*****..." En fín... Corramos un (es)tupído velo y a otra cosa mariposa... ;)

Mañana marcho por trabajo a los "pipi sisi" y no regresaré hasta el viernes... Asi que super terram pax in hominibus bonæ voluntatis. Un abrazo. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 21:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] where is it?

Hi Owdki. Sorry for the less than smart question, but...would you please pay a look at this this? I guess it is obvious, but I just dont get it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 21:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, M! I hate those things and their slang. o_O Will you edit that tocho, man? I think those things haven't edit buttons. Try the long path:
1. Edit the article
2. Find the template tag
3. Go directly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:XXXXXXX)
I've seen that sometimes those things are full of data in the editpage itself. But in this case is just a template. You can get it there.
BTW: many thanks for think about Catalan people. Dúnadan... --Owdki talk 03:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You are right! it's that one and editable. I will proceed sometime soon. Thanks and sorry for the late notice of your reply.
BTW, are you off? looks like, for a change, we are getting some progress. It would be good to hear your opinion and contributions as well.
Thanks again. Mountolive group using a loop of another pop group 19:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, currently I'm lacking any enthusiasm... ya know. --Owdki talk 23:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)