User talk:Owdki/Archive Sep 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Block

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I've opened a new account, IamOwdki, but it's blocked too (both blocked by Picaroon). He says I'm a sockpuppet, but It's false. I don't know what to do or what kind of info put here in my defence"

Decline reason: "What Picaroon below says makes sense. Declining pending a different result at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Owdki. — Sandstein 19:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This user jumped right into an acrimonious debate on a talk page, and then an arbitration case. There is also evidence that he's been using open proxies to edit. His excuse is that he's a quick learner. I blocked him as a request for checkuser (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Owdki) was pending. Picaroon (t) 19:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I hasn't been using open proxies to edit. I hope to find a way to prove it (to prove my innocence). --Owdki 13:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No news? Any information about checkuser? --Owdki 17:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

See below.

Request handled by: Picaroon (t) 23:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser case has been declined and the claim you were using proxies refuted. I don't know what more to say than please don't fuel the fire with comments like this anymore. Sorry if you really are new, but I think you see where I'm coming from. Calling people nationalists is not a good way to get a start in one of Wikipedia's more contentious topics. Picaroon (t) 23:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still in the "Vivacissimo accelerando, quasi sublime" tempo. I understand you but, please, understand me. You've readed my Silly Symphony. And I've been blocked!!! No help or info, just open my account and be blocked! This injustice was humiliating and outrageous. I'm totally scared and stunned with my experience. I know, I know... I'll try to be positive and constructive. I can imagine it very complex, and I see where you're coming from.

Just to point some items about the blocking: from my experience it could be nice if you, in the same situation:

1. Put a brief explanation about the block reasons in the blocked user talk page (before he file a unblocking request).
2. Try to discuss or answer when the blocked user adresses to you.
3. Inform about relevant facts related with the blocking.

It would help to understand.

Thanks, thanks a lot for break the "da capo", Picaroon.
I really thought that I would be blocked for ever unjustly.

PS: Please, I'd like to contribute with my point of view in the Evidence page [1], Can I?
Best, --Owdki 01:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can contribute evidence there. Remember, try to keep it under 1000 words and 100 diffs. And you're right, I should've given you a better explanation earlier. Picaroon (t) 01:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Sincerely, thank you Picaroon. I'll try to do the best. --Owdki 01:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I am glad you were able to get your security issue resolved, and I was happy to assist you with it. Happy editing, and let me know if you need anything. Prodego talk 02:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that your security problems made me suspect that you were behind an open proxy. As you can see in its article sometimes one can think that as a result of misconfiguration of proxy software running on the computer, or of infection with malware (viruses, trojans or worms) designed for this purpose. Happy editing :) --GillesV 18:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, GillesV --Owdki 00:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Man, this is not necessary: doubts about newcomer condition and sockpuppeting with extreme technical knowledge [2]. Happy editing... happy editing??? You don't give a chance and this is an invitation to the "Vivacissimo accelerando, quasi sublime" tempo. Wikipedia:Etiquette: Assume good faith, please. --Owdki 01:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
As you can see I speak about a "supposed pupeteer" , I have my own opinion but I also assume good faith that is the reason why I discuss with you in a normal manner. But seeing your contributions it seems an example of Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Identification and handling of suspected sock puppets#Characteristics of sock puppets...to request a checkuser is not a personal attack and the policies reflect that. Sorry if you feel that like this. You can see that it is not only about you, I think that in Catalonia the use of puppets is evident and we need to attach the problem. Another case for example is: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Loiro

--GillesV 10:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[3] Lapsus calami? I have my own opinion too... --Owdki talk 11:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
At that moment you were banned for sockpuppetry so it was not a lapsus. It would be a lapsus if I say that now.--GillesV 23:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Interpreting primary sources

While I am open to discussion, you are making claims and accusations that you cannot back up -and, to be honest, I found it quite hard to follow your argument. While I appreciate the debate, you are making very direct claims, such as:

  • What's amazing is that you are subtracting its value as source.
  • Systematically hiding the real hierarchy of concepts.

Please do not make direct claims to people, but to arguments. I don't wish to [over]complicate a debate with verbosity. It is quite simple. Catalonia is a nationality of Spain, such as the Basque Country, Galicia, Andalusia, and more recently, Valencia, the Balearic Islands and Aragon (and if the Statute of Autonomy is approved, the Canary Islands will join the list). It is a statutory definition of their identity which the constitution recognizes. They all have constituted themselves as autonomous communities of Spain. Either way, both declarations are fully verifiable. I do not wish to hide any of the two.

Two more things:

  • If you wish to change the articles in the Catalan Wikipedia, discuss the issue there not here. I am not the sole author of them.
  • I have never edited Sitges. Your accusations of me hiding the real hierarchy of concepts is therefore spurious. In fact, I have not edited any of the comarques or municipalities of Catalonia. If you have an issue there, please discuss it with the authors, not with me. If you want to know my opinion, however, then I agree, the article should state that Sitges is located in "Catalonia, Spain", and if "Spain" is not included, then it should. But like I said, that is an issue that you need to resolve with the appropriate users, not with me, though if asked, I will support the inclusion of "Spain" in the phrase.

--the Dúnadan 14:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answer. As you did in our first discussion, you aren't answering me. In our first discussion you didn't answer me, but you changed the content. Ergo you didn't answer me, but you "followed my argument". It doesn't need more words.
Note something very important: that they all haven't constituted themselves as autonomous communities of Spain. It was the Spanish Nation, and its sovereignty, by means of the approval of the Spanish Constitution (Constitution => constituted).
1. "The Spanish Nation, desiring to establish justice, liberty, and security, and to promote the well-being of all its members, in the exercise of its sovereignty, proclaims..."
2. "National sovereignty belongs to the Spanish people, from whom all state powers emanate"
When I wrote about Sitges, as you can read, I tried to illustrate the GillesV incoherence (not yours: yours is explained before), due to he's in the Request and he knows the "biased" problem. Rather than editing "country" (as he did after read my words) he edited this [4].
I think it's very illustrative.

--Owdki talk 09:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic, in that edition I updated the population Owkdi, what is the problem? ? I corrected the problem of the country when you pointed that there was an error so obviously I did that after reading your words. Note that the fact of editing doesn't imply that I support errors that are written there simply because I don't read the whole article each time I edit it. --GillesV 23:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I want to illustrate one point about Sitges: Owkdi do you think the fact that for example I edited sometimes in Sitges implies that I support all what is written there?? Absolutely not. It is not a question of one editor or a group of editors, the articles are made by the Community and if someone wants to improve then he can do it. If the change is controversial may be someone will revert you and you will have to use the discussion page but I think that you can be bold and include Spain there. I suppose that nobody will revert you so I don't understand this point. Note that the infobox also includes the Country and probably that is the reason why editors forgot to include it in the lead. I feel that it is better to correct the errors like this instead of starting lenghty discussions about the intentions of the editors. And finally realize that the wording was changed by user:Tazmaniacs not by me so simply the matter of that change in the description of the location had not called my attention.
May be at this stage you think that a good editor is one that is very "efficient" and can assure that the content of an article only reflects his own point of view and it is only "his" responsability to take care of it but I hope that after all you realize that not. I think that this "efficiency" in fact is called disrutpion --GillesV 23:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm ignorant of the systematics. But If you think about your responsibility, knowing this context (wars, claims, arbitration...) and what you claim, you'll understand it. If you put "Spain" (as you did) it cannot be disruptive. It's obvious. Thanks for the correction. Me editing? I'm too scared: I could "fotre la pota en qualsevol moment". --Owdki talk 09:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Please, don't take example of other users answering things not related with the discussion. May be it seems a good strategy but at the end of the day it doesn't work. It doesn't work to start lengthy discussions about the intentions of the users (as you did here and here) instead of speaking about the contents of the articles. And I want to point you out again that it will be an extremly disruptive attitude from me if the article Sitges only includes my POV. Note that the fact of editing doesn't imply that I support errors that are written there simply because I don't read the whole article each time I edit it.--GillesV 23:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Email

No t'ho prenguis malament, però no he entès tot el que volies dir-me en el teu e-mail. Et refereixes a la discussió actual de les categories de nord-catalans de la Viqui catalana o a alguna altra cosa d'aquesta viqui? --the Dúnadan 23:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Per descomptat. M'imagino que intentes verificar si sóc jo realment, si aquest ès el meu email... M'equivoco? Si vols t'ho explico ací. --Owdki talk 23:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
No volia verificar, com que has enviat el email des de la Wikipedia, va sortir el teu nick, i ja sabia que eres tu. És que realment no he entès el que volies dir. --the Dúnadan 18:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)