User talk:Enric Naval

Terrence Webster-Doyle rewrite

After your helpful commentary with this, I wanted to see if you could look at my proposed entry at User:RennaissanceWarfare/Terrence Webster-Doyle as a single, whole entity unto itself (it's only a paragraph in length), and put on your Admin hat and ask the question, "does this merit inclusion, does it meet the standards, does it serve to correct the prior objections that it was overstuffed, spam, non-notable and a vanity page". If you could give it 5 minutes of your time in that capacity, and give me the nod that it's fine, notes to improve, or an indication that it's innapropriate, that's all I ask. If you think it looks acceptable, could you leave a comment on the Closing Admin's talk page to that effect (he seems hesitant to include an opinion, and is suggesting it go to the deletion review process which I think would simply reignite the old discussions, irrespective of the massively different version I've made) Thank you for your time. RennaissanceWarfare (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The entry is much better written. But I think that it still lacks a clear source that makes him pass WP:BIO. As such, I can't just go and recommend the closing admin to undelete it. Like him, I recommend going through WP:DRV.

(As an aside, I just saw the closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Ball, which had a similar problem) --Enric Naval (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the comments, and thank you for looking it over. RennaissanceWarfare (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

mistake?

You seem to have removed someone else's post with this edit.  pablo 08:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ooops, yes, my mistake. The software didn't warn me about the edit conflict for some reason. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo again

WhiteWriter is trying again to gain a consensus on Kosovo to split the article. Unfortunately the discussion has become a case, where the vast majority of supports are from Serb editors without a single argument[1]. When I pointed out that users without a conlict of interest have rejected this proposal about a month ago I got this reply [2]. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I had been seeing it. Note that one of the supporters seems to be greek. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation - your input is required

A request for mediation has been filed concerning a matter in which you have participated.

The operative page is at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Creampie (sexual act). Please go there and indicate your acceptance of mediation at the Parties' agreement to mediation section (or you can decline to accept mediation, if for some reason you want to.) If you have any questions about mediation, see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation or message me. Thank you for your time and consideration. Herostratus (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Queen discography

Hi Enric, concerning Queen songs, I didn't re-direct any of them, but I re-redirected them back to their individual articles. These four singles which should have their own articles are "Bicycle Race", "Mustapha", "Jealously" and "One Year of Love". These four are notable charted singles in their respective territories, so I saved them. Blame TenPoundHammer for the redirects, not me. Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Go ahead with the deletions. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hope you don't mind this, Enric. My current topic ban seems to allow me to make nondisruptive comments on user Talk pages, and I hope you will consider this helpful.

The cold fusion article has been edited to add information about pyroelectric fusion, which is completely out of place in the cold fusion, it is also covered in Nuclear fusion#Generally_cold, locally hot fusion and has its own article as well, it is not cold fusion at all. That's a fairly common error, but it's the same situation with bubble fusion (allegedly). Pyroelectric fusion is simply a known and practical method of creating very high effective temperature in a very small space, in this case as with any fusion produced by accelerating deuterons to high velocity for impact with a target, it is exactly the same kind of fusion (as to the reaction itself) as thermonuclear fusion. --Abd (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

invite to discuss Kosovo geographic names

I would like to invite you to review my summary of problems in kosovo geographic articles here User_talk:Mdupont#Naming_and_status_of_Kosovo_pages all comments appreciated. thanks, James Michael DuPont (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for my fast response

I was sure that we would have general agreement once you saw that guideline paragraph, but I never considered the possibility that you might find it on your own while I posted. I wish your way of dealing with such situations weren't so exceptional. Hans Adler 22:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Enric Naval (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo again

[3] I don't even know how many discussions in a row will be started over and over again. Btw he's claiming a 8-to-1 consensus about the split, which is apparently an attempt to create a false consensus effect.---— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

• Hi there. Just to leave a note to thank you for your help with Valencian language. Its a pity that other editors do not follow WP NPOV and Truth policies. Regards. IeXrivâ (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

• News and notes: Article Alerts back from the dead, plus news in brief

• In the news: Faulty story urges for advertising on Wikipedia; brief news

• Image donation: Christmas gift to Commons from the State Library of Queensland

• Discussion report: Should leaked documents be cited on Wikipedia?

• WikiProject report: Majestic Titans

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Motion passed in R&I case; ban appeals, amendment requests, and more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822

Hi! Thanks for helping out with the CCI. Just a note though, we can't assume that just because images are taken pre-1923 that they were published pre-1923. When there's no verifiable source for publication it should be tagged as non-free. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the indication. So, should I revert myself and put it again as fair use? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be my recommendation, yes. Wikipedia:Public domain#Unpublished works goes into some more detail if you're interested. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I, too, am very grateful with your help with this. Images are not my area, which is why I left so many (especially non-free ones) alone. :) I do think you may have misread one image, though. I left a note at the CCI, but rather than doing something convoluted with talkbacks figured I'd just discuss it separately here. With respect to our file on File:Weston Zanzibar.jpg, according to our article on him, he actually started being a bishop in 1908 and continued until November 1924, hence why its dating seems unclear. :/ (And, like Verno, I think if you believe a valid FUR can be made for any image where we can't positively determine it's free, go for it! I told Richard back when I started this that I'm uneasy with our FUR standards regarding images of dead people, having had one of my own deleted at IfD and another retained at NFCR, when so far as I could see they were identical in function!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right, I misread those dates. I'm not sure of what FUR I could use here, I suppose that "at the height of his career" wouldn't work :) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. :D I've stayed away from people images ever since my first confusing brush. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm better at making FUR about non-people stuff. I find that FUR for people are very difficult to make. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Smiley

Thanks for that exhaustive search! :-) Fences&Windows 02:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Not at all! Let's see if I can add some info to the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

• Ambassadors: Wikipedia Ambassador Program growing, adjusting

• News and notes: Director of Technical Operations hired; South Korean mayor sues; brief news

• In the news: Designing Wikipedia and the origin of page histories; brief news

• WikiProject report: WikiProject National Basketball Association (NBA)

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo

After failing multiple times to gain a consensus now Alinor decided to make changes that he considers as a status quo[4], which incidentally is similar to the pre-ICJ decision of the article and against the current consensus [5]. Btw now Alinor started another discussion about the same subject[6]--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ufff, I have family supper tonight, it's Nochebuena here in Spain. And tomorrow I have the New Year family dinner.I don't know when I'll be able to reply. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I advice that you make a complaint at WP:AE, just copy the comment you made here. Make sure you include a link to the article probation WP:ARBKOS#Kosovo_related_articles_on_Article_probation. Also to WP:ARBKOS#Edit_warring_considered_harmful and WP:ARBKOS#Disruptive_editing. Include his edit [7] and his revert to his version [8], and that he is undoing an edit from July, 5 months ago [9]. Now I'm off, bye. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)