User talk:Valenciano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

UPD[edit]

The user Hdsv69 wants to invent the party name. Unión Progreso y Democracia = Union Progress and Democracy; Unión, Progreso y Democracia = Union, Progress and Democracy; Unión del Progreso y la Democracia = Progress and Democracy Union or Union of Progress and Democracy; Unión por el Progreso y la Democracia or Unión para el Progreso y la Democracia = Union for Progress and Democracy. And what's more, the party uses Unión, Progreso y Democracia in official documents and a seat. It's impossible which Progress and Democracy Union can be a well translation from Spanish to English.Sussie17 (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC) I consider this edition is vandalism [1]. Hdsv69 is changing the word union for alliance due to a wrong interpretation.Sussie17 (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The edits to Rosa Diez are clearly not vandalism. WP:VANDALISM says: "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." In this case, you blanked the requested move. That's unhelpful and is not the way to proceed. You should let the requested move run its course and argue your case there on the article's talk page. Valenciano (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Valenciano. This is to let you know I have requested a Sockpuppet investigation into Javier93h/Sussie17/79.108.144.61 (my first ever request of that kind). Saludos, --Hvd69 (talk) 10:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
As you've seen, I commented there. Valenciano (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

UPyD[edit]

Hola, sé que sabes hablar español así que te escribo en este idioma. Por favor, pon algo de cordura en la discusión del título del partido. Hay pruebas de que unión se refiere a la unidad de España porque Mikel Buesa e Irene Lozano así lo han dicho. Rosa Díez ha escrito un libro en el que pone el nombre del partido con coma y ha sido usado con coma en al menos una sede del partido y en documentos oficiales como en la querella contra Bankia. A ello hay que añadir que el hecho de que el partido use mayoritariamente el nombre sin coma no quiere decir que sea una unión del progreso y la democracia que es el único argumento que tiene Hdsv69, es una interpretación personal suya que además sabemos que es mentira por las fuentes presentadas de Mikel Buesa e Irene Lozano aclarando el nombre del partido. El relativizar tanto la verdad demostrada y empeñarse en que el artículo tenga un título equivocado a sabiendas es también un comportamiento bastante disruptivo. Me gustaría pedirte que fueses tajante con Hdvs69 pues no tiene ningún sentido su comportamiento. También me gustaría que se mantuviese esta información que voy a poner porque está demostrado y pone fin a la discusión:

Mikel Buesa in 2007 and Irene Lozano in 2013 have explained the meaning of the 3 concepts which form party’s denomination: Union because of their defense of “the unity of Spain”, Progress because of their adscription to “progressivism” as ideology and Democracy because they declare themselves “radical democrats”.[1][2][3][4]84.120.251.102 (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

(English translation below) Javier, como le dije en la página de UPyD, creo que tiene razon. Pero ud está indefinidamente bloqueado. Eso significa que no debe editar cualquier página hasta que se retire ese bloque. Para que esto suceda, debe detener el uso de proxies y cuentas alternativas para evadir el bloqueo. Mientras usted continua haciendo esto, se revertirán todas sus ediciones. Para editar de nuevo, en primer lugar, ud debe apelar su bloque. Debe aceptar que ha equivocado al utilizar cuentas alternativas, se comprometen a utilizarla sólo una cuenta, evite la edición hasta que se retire el bloque y evitar atacar a otros usuarios, como lo hizo en la Wikipedia en español. No es seguro que dicho recurso sería un éxito, pero es su única opción.
Javier, as I told you on the UPyD page, I think you have an argument. But you are indefinitely blocked. That means you should not edit any page until that block is lifted. For that to happen, you must stop the use of proxies and alternative accounts to evade the block. While you continue to do that, all your edits will be reverted, as is common with blocked users. To edit again, firstly you must successfully appeal your block. You should accept that you were wrong to use alternative accounts, commit to using only one account, avoid editing until the block is removed and avoid attacking other users, as you did on the Spanish Wikipedia. It is not certain that such an appeal would be successful, but it is your only option. Valenciano (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Pero da igual si me desbloquean o no, tú sabes que el comportamiento de Hsdv69 está perjudicando a la Wikipedia. Ha cambiado ya el nombre del partido sin haber finalizado la discusión. Los argumentos que ha empleado están en su contra pues ninguna traducción debería cambiar el significado del nombre del partido. Al permitir si quiera seguir dando la posibilidad a ese cambio únicamente porque a él le hubiese gustado más que UPyD no hubiese hecho referencia a la unidad de España en su nombre, se está induciendo a editar basándose en percepciones o en mentiras como es el caso. Porque él sabe que está equivocado, pero le da igual con tal de llevarme la contraria. Te vuelvo a pedir que finalices la discusión y que pongas tú mismo la edición que me has revertido, pues por muy bloquedo que esté un usuario si la edición que hace beneficia, ésta debe dejarse.84.120.251.102 (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Very, very quickly as I'm a little busy in real life these days. I don't see Hsdv69 is breaking any rules. Also, Javier, please seek unblock. It will be easier all round, as otherwise any sock accounts that you create will just end up being reverted. Valenciano (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

References[edit]

Talk:Belfast/GA1[edit]

Hi. I've opened a GAR on the Belfast article for which you are one of the main contributors. I have concerns that it does not quite meet current GA criteria regarding sourcing and several MoS issues, see Talk:Belfast/GA1 for more details if you're interested. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look later. Valenciano (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Valenciano. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 15:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

WWE EDITS[edit]

Hi that user is beyond warnings he has blanked every WWE 2013 PPV page. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I was going to report him, but he's already blocked. Valenciano (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I reported him to moonriddengirl. Cheers anyway, Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

List of pop punk bands[edit]

Thanks. Don't know why I didn't check first. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It's an easy mistake to make, most of the work on those lists seems to be stopping people spamming their favourite bands on there without reading the comments about notability. Valenciano (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Knaack club[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Knaack club at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Drmies (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Look what I proposed. See if you like it. Another reviewer will have to OK it. And if you don't mind--I'm leaving the office now--see if you can't beef up the Prenzlauer Berg article with the two references I added to your article. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Discussing it now with Soman. I prefer your Alt1. I'll have a look over the Prenzlauer Berg article in a minute, gotta finish off an article first. Valenciano (talk) 09:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Nice improvements, thank you! How do you feel about an infobox? I saw this, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Good suggestion Gerda, I've added that. Valenciano (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
It's featured also on Portal:Germany ;) - If you have more DYK related to Germany feel free to add it there yourself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Data Tutashkhia"[edit]

I've deleted that as an implausible redirect - who is likely to type in quotation marks? Deb (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Deb, that's fine. It ended up with the quotation marks due to the edit conflict I detailed on your user page. As it's clearly a notable book, I've created a redirect, without the quote marks to the author. Valenciano (talk) 20:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Barcelona (Spanish Congress Electoral District)[edit]

Hi, Valenciano. First of all, thank you for the appreciation. Now I'm answering your doubts:

It is not that I've removed the 2008 and 2004 results just to replace them with European election results. What happens is that I intend to upgrade the article so as to show tables for all general and European elections (since, while not electing any seats, the Ministry of the Interior also show a provincial map for those just as it does for general elections). However, it is so much work that I have to make it slowly: that's why you just saw results for the 2014 and 2009 European election and for the 2011 general election. I was making the table for the 2008 general election when you reverted most of my doings. And once I finish this comment I will make the table for 2004. Ideally, these Electoral District articles should show election results for at least general and European elections (that is, for nationwide elections). I feel it is just unnecesary to create separate articles to show results for different elections, so that is why I'm doing it in the same place. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello Impru20, I'm not convinced at the wisdom of including Euro election results there (why those but not Catalan parliamentary elections, which are undoubtedly more important to the average citizen?) It seems like stats clutter and against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ultimately, however, I know from experience how long those tables take to create, so I'd hate for your good work to be lost. Let's discuss it at Talk:Barcelona_(Spanish_Congress_Electoral_District), to see if we can find a solution. Valenciano (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, I did not say that Catalan parliamentary election are not to be included; just that I'm focusing on general and European elections (to keep it simple). With time, maybe both regional and local elections can be included too (specially in the case of Catalonia, where parties are rising and collapsing at an incredibly fast pace that should definitely not be ignored). I just want to make it step by step however; I don't know how far I can go in this respect, since all these articles are called "(Spanish Congress Electoral District)". Changing their names to just "Province name (Electoral District)" would work much better (specially seeing how those districts are used, either for awarding seats or for showing results, for a variety of elections, ranging from general to regional, as well as locals). In the end, what I hope is that we can have for Spanish elections such detailed information as have, for example, UK single-member districts, in a single article.
I'm about to finish the 2004 table, so once I'm done with it I'll discuss this in the talk page. Cheers! Impru20 (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt then. I was going to suggest for now putting the European ones in a separate section to the general elections, but I see that you've already done that. Regarding the UK ones, actually the standard is to have separate articles for the separate elections. See for example Belfast_West which has four articles for four separate elections or Airdrie and Shotts (Scottish Parliament constituency) versus Airdrie and Shotts (UK Parliament constituency). While it would be great to have results for all elections in one place, I fear that would result in an article too large to work, as for any province of Spain you could have no less than five separate sets of elections included in it: European, national parliament lower house, national parliament upper house (the senate), regional parliament and municipal elections. That's a lot to cram on to one page. Valenciano (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
About the UK ones, in that regard it is a different case. Actually there is just two articles for two separate elections (the other two being former incarnations of that electoral district), but in the UK it has sense: electoral boundaries for the House of Commons and for the regional Assembly can be different (see Scotland, for example) and I think it could be theoretically possible to maintain the electoral district for one election and to modify it or to remove it altogether (either by splitting it or by having it join another district) for the other. In Spain this is not the case: provinces are the electoral districts for most elections (except for the regional elections for the uniprovincial communities of Asturias and Murcia, where electoral districts are divisions smaller than the province, and for the Canary and Balearic Islands, whose districts are the islands themselves). In order to make this different you would require a constitutional reform in order to change the province's boundaries, which:
1. None is actually predicted in this sense in the near future.
2. If it happens, electoral districts would change for all elections, not just for one type of them. This would require creating a new article for the new district, which, however, would comprise all kinds of elections in the same way that I'm developing the Barcelona article.
While it is true that the article could contain a lot of info, there are ways so make it so that it doesn't look cluttered, i.e. separating elections by types, making the tables so that they show the main parties only, etc. Btw, don't take the upper house elections into account; results for those, due to their particular electoral system, are much more difficult to display on a table than the others (I've done a test in the 2011 general election article so to see if it is possible to display a fairly summarized version of the results, but I don't know how close this could be to W:OR so I'm even considering to revert it). Not talking that upper house elections are maybe even less important than European elections: the Senate in Spain is basically useless because everything passed there can be overriden by the Congress. Not even the Spanish Interior Ministry takes much consideration into showing detailed results for these in its webpage, so... Impru20 (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
The thing about the European election is not only related to its relative lack of importance, as reflected in the much lower turnout. It's that there is no Electoral district of Barcelona (EDB) for the European parliament. As you know, elections there take place as part of the nationwide Spain constituency. I agree with your point about the uselessness of the Spanish Senate, but if we are going to aim for a comprehensive EDB article, that has to go in, since Barcelona Province *is* an electoral district for that. So for such an article, we'd have to include both chambers of the national parliament and the Catalan parliament. The issue with adding European parliament elections and, for that matter, municipal elections, is that they don't belong in such an article and adding them takes away its focus from the electoral district. We'd need to expand the remit to Elections in Barcelona Province and I'm starting to think that that might be the best course, with an overview and links to relevant subarticles. To answer your concern earlier about duplication, I don't think that would be such a problem. The parent/overview article could be kept short, with just a summary of results and perhaps only the results of the most recent election and the various subarticles could go into more detail.
Regarding the difficulty of representing Senate results, the possibility is simply to report how many votes each candidate got and link to the relevant Limited voting article for an explanation of the voting system.
Anyway, for now, I would say go ahead and add the results you think best to the current article. In the end we can have a look and decide what the best article structure would be. Valenciano (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Knaack club[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 08:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

OK[edit]

I got your message. I'll keep it in mind. Thanks.Erik L'Ensle :) (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yo no Creo en los Hombres[edit]

Hi, the two titles are well written anyway, remain the same. As the title was capitalized and appeared on TV, written as I leave. What happens is that on wikipedia in Spanish, all titles in Spanish must be lowercase as in the Portuguese wikipedia, there are different rules.--Damián80 (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Tony Penikett[edit]

If you don't see a massive downplaying of his political career, including the complete and total annihilation of even the slightest acknowledgement that he had ever actually been Premier of Yukon at all, on three successive occasions after reverts by administrators, as serious enough to warrant taking whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the editor in question cannot access the article anymore, then I really don't know what to say. I'd be happy to downgrade it to "pending changes" at this time, but it was in no way my "responsibility" to have done so any sooner than this. Bearcat (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but there are numerous articles which that applies to, where one editor is on a POV crusade to add biased info or downplay or remove positive info. In cases like that, the editor gets warned then blocked if they persist and reverted when they reappear. Asking for more eyes on the article via venues like WP:BLPN also helps, if there are not enough people already monitoring the article. If all that fails then options like pending changes and semi protection are there. What doesn't get done, in my experience round here, is that an article gets indefinitely locked because of a short term POV push by one editor. Generally we try gradual steps before pressing the nuclear button. I'd suggest that yes, pending changes would be a better option here, though even there, I'm not even sure there's been enough sustained action by that editor that a group of editors watchlisting the article couldn't handle (I've watchlisted myself.) Valenciano (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:OUP access[edit]

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to Oxford University Press's humanities materials through the TWL partnership described at WP:OUP . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email from User:Nikkimaria several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are receiving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:OUP/Approved.

DYK for Assassination of Augusto Unceta Barrenechea[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)