User talk:Mountolive

Archives
June 06 - Feb 07 Feb 07 - Dec. 07 Coda 07 Jan. 08 - Sept. 08

Did you know?

On 2 October, 2008, I've realized that the Valencian Ethnic People in all Countries (as well as the Catalan ones =P) has a population of 12,000 individuals... and I'm afraid the reliable source reflects the Samaruc population.

^_^ Hiya Mountolive. It's been a long time! I'm very sorry to toss your currently immaculate talk page: we have a problem. That's enough. The problem is I'm dry. So I think it's better request for mediation. Cheers (hiya, Maurice!)--Owdki ^talk 16:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, well, well...good ol' MC Owdki strikes back...it's been for a while, dude.

And I missed you. Even though you came to disturb the pristine blank look of my talk page freed from yet more Cataproblems...

Excuse me for the unrequested OR which follows ;) but...it is intriguing. People, after taking a break, come back (because they/we almost always eventually come back) in a more loose approach, typically editting articles which are not related to their past grudges, which they typically remove from their watchlist, if only for a while...still, you came back in a "como decíamos ayer" mood. Puzzling as it may be, I still salute this approach, for it speaks of the deep nature of your systemic concern, which I understand and share (but I am afraid we can't get explained properly).

[(Well, actually, on second thought, all my OR is more like BS as I remember now that a long time gone "element" recently came back to ravage the Valencian Community article with the same "reasons" after one year (on parole? ;) and then disappeared again (dunno for how long...). I guess my OR only applies to anglosaxon editors...]

What you are proposing is bold and, somehow, I agree. However, I am afraid your "impeachment" (just struggling to find a word who defines your 'enmienda a la totalidad' tenet) is definitely out question by now and out of our hands to ever make it successful.

Dont get me wrong: I still think you could be right, you are right, but, against the Solzhenitsyn motto in my user's page, I am afraid that, with the present situation, I guess the only way out is to compromise with the powerful lobby from which, btw, Noguera is the best example of a guy whom you can talk to, so, in my opinion, we'd better not bark to the wrong tree in the first place.

You can only expect more and more users (including administrators) coming from the ca.wiki to illustrate how wrong this wikipedia is according to their own wikipedia. Some people behaving here basically like vandals (I'm thinking of that one destroying the V.C. community article) seem to be even respected users there.

I feel the damned weight of dealing with these guys, at times I am at carrying capacity (not lately, though, but it only takes a fuse and the whole thing explodes like fuckin' dynamite) despite the -no less executive :P- action by Mo27 or the always fair new user Kman.

All in all, I think you should drop your own Solzhenitsynesque hopes and join the likely lads, discuss with Noguera (it is the only discussion which does yield outcomes that I know so far) only trying to be reasonable and make understand the occasional astray user from ca.wiki that things are different over here.

This said, you can count with my support with most of the stuff you lead. But, I wouldnt like to disappoint you: my tolerance level for Cataproblems is damned low and I am prone to give up reached a certain point...

I'm glad to hear from you, man. I hope you stay. Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 20:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

=D Your "OR" is totally "Dúnadainesque", in the worst sense (mmm... it lacks the "I'm amazed", but those "it is intriguing"-"puzzling" are very original substitutes).

Reading your first paragraph I could think that you believe I've edited directly the Dalí article, falling from "my break" directly to a hot zone in a edit war. But... reading the other lines I could think that you have dug in my edit track record. Anyway I get your words with the same respect as the Heraclitus words. Don't get me wrong, because I respect you as well as Heraclitus. Another different thing is if I understand you, because you don't make it easy. And no motto works if you don't communicate clearly your concerns.

At this point the only thing I can do is expressing my general view, using a clear "OR".

Regarding the main issue, I see my "impeachment" as clear as the past Catalan people case. That is, the same way there was a note in the very top of the article:

• This article refers to both the Catalans as an ethnic group and to those speakers of the Catalan language who may not be identified as being Catalan.

In the same way, à la carte, we ought to put another one in the very top of each article where "Catalan" is used with "Spanish", for example:

• Note: The term "nationality" in this context does not imply -and has never been intended to imply- the status of statehood, of which a state-citizenship is recognized by the international community, but rather the recognition of "historical identity" or, in Keating's words, "national identity" (in other words, no one has ever claimed that Gaudí was Catalan as a "state-citizenship", he was a Spanish citizen because he was from Catalonia, a constituent "nationality" of the Spanish State). Please note too that this same term, "nationality" is also applied, in a similar fashion, to the constituent countries of the United Kingdom (Keating, p.25). Britannica also uses the term in the article of Spain to describe the four nationalities of Spain. Most importantly, it is the official, constitutional and/or statutory definition for some of the constituent political entities within Spain (the majority of which have a different native language: Catalan, Euskera or Galician, for example). (My addendum:) Note also that the Spanish and Catalan terms could be used in a cultural fashion. Please, choose the context and the meaning you like depending on your POV.

Where are the Wikipedia standards? We are not here to satisfy any POV pusher (nor me, nor you, nor Cnoguera, nor anybody), if it means violate the rules. The mess with the "cultural" meaning is just mess and misinformation. When you have to explain such things, there's a deep problem here. A deep comprehension problem. You know what I'm talking about.

Cnoguera: I have my own right to distrust Cnoguera due to his behaviour. We was discussing about "Catalan countries" and, after a looooong and dense discussion here is the outcome: Països Catalans. Can you see the Ramon llull Institute translation there? No. Just forcing the polysemy on translation: "Catalan countries" everywhere. Forcing. The polisemy case is just on Catalan context, but there isn't polysemic case on translation: two concepts. But the worst blow to my hopes was this. Cnoguera didn't answer. Nobody answered Jmabel. That template is related with the Catalan countries mess: it worked the linguistic concept, and now it's deleted. God bless the "embolica que fa fort"! And they had the responsibility. They still have the responsibility. But the problem have persisted, and in essence ain't damn shit has changed. Their silence toward Jmabel concerns is just an illustration. And I don't see the same activity in wp:ca toward the same matters discussed in wp:en. I only see silence and "I don't hear that".

You point out "the powerful lobby" (a pale wp:ca reflection). I gave them a chance (Dúnadan, Xtv, Cnoguera, etc.) in order to work all the background seriously. I'm still waiting for (where are you, guys?). They still have the responsibility. I'm giving them another chance right now.

I've retired my "impeachment". It's in your hands. Please, bear in mind the standards. Consensus must flow under Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not just for the sake of consensus. That would be a flawed consensus. When I see such things I go nuts. And there was consensus for 3 fuckin years!

Well, I'm out. Take care and keep up the good work. --Owdki ^talk 17:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW: Hey, I'm not back. I don't like using vests =P. Did you read the 2008 report? The DYN and the Samaruc note was because of that single purpose account: the independence overriding Valencian ethnicity by means Catalan countries + catalan ethnicity (it was her own reference). And this was funny also.

So you are out again? pues vaya gracia... Mountolive _{deny, deflect, detonate} 23:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah! AMAZING. After posting this link in Vriullop talk page, and posting here my concern about the Ramon Llull Institute translation, which translated "Països Catalans" as "catalan-speaking lands", TODAY THIS PAGE HAS BEEN VAPORIZED. The map is Vaporized. All is vaporized. What do you think? XDXDXD. Oh, my! Did you see the link before the "move", Mountolive? Hey, Cnoguera: where are you, fella? --Owdki ^talk 11:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)