User talk:Mountolive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Archives
  1. June 06 - Feb 07
  2. Feb 07 - Dec. 07
  3. Coda 07
  4. Jan. 08 - Oct. 08
  5. Nov. 08 - July 09


I'll tell you this for free: the idea that a "nation" or a "culture" or a "community" has rights which supersede the rights of human beings is the guaranteed road to a nightmare. Add to that the idea that the descendents of an oppressor have to be punished in the oppressor's place, and your nightmare will become hell

List of Basques[edit]

Could we possibly agree not to specify the finer points of residence and place of birth on that page? That takes us back to the flag debate you may remember. The intro explains the critia and the specific info can be found on the bio pages. I just fear this getting very messy again. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I regret to say that I disagree with not specifying the birth places. The whole article is based on a controversial point, that those regions are part of a Basque culture. Specificaly, some (actually a majority) of Navarrese do not identify themselves as Basques, but as Navarrese instead, therefore, this should be noted. Basque nationalism being dominant in the Basque community has provoked that those in Navarre who are not Basque nationalists (including a significant number of Basque speakers, too) do not identify themselves as Basques, but as Navarrese. Besides, Navarre as such, has a rich institutional history which the other Basque territories definitely lack.
Besides, there are disparaged (wrong!) examples of so-called Basques, like Argentinean football players, Mexican football managers or English musicians, and this should be noted as well.
In all, the article is a complete mess as it is now. Specifying the regions at least makes it less bluntly inaccurate. Besides, it is the most inclusive and less controversial point of view, since by specifying the birth regions is not denying any real or perceived 'basqueness' to the guys in there.
If you guys out there do not agree with that and keep removing the birth places, then I guess some NPOV tags should be included and leave it for future generations of wikipedians... MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 18:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Salazarese[edit]

Me again... I seem to be intent on filling your talk page! I was wondering if you could give me/us a reality check at the Salazarese page? We seem to have ended up with a 1 sentence intro and a 1 paragraph justification and I don't seem to be getting through. But then, maybe I'm wrong... Cheers! Akerbeltz (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I did some additions, hope you find them constructive. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 18:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Longest Basque name[edit]

Your search fu is weak. Talk:Spanish naming customs#Basque names is easy to find from within Wikipedia. I added it to basque surnames. Thanks for the hint. --Error (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Immigration in catalonia[edit]

I'd like to know what are your sources of information about the linguistic situation in Catalonia, as you are repeatedly removing (as opposed to discussing, referencing, contrasting, etc.) any mention of the link between immigration and Spanish language in Catalonia. My own sources of information are that I live here (in Catalonia) and that link is for me overwhelmingly obvious, though of course I can waste my time finding references for the obvious if you persist in your removing. --Jotamar (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

People[s] of Spain[edit]

Hello Mountolive, long time no see. As you know I left the English Wikipedia -especially articles related to Spain- about a year ago, but I couldn't help but notice the following peculiarity, that seems to have been left untouched for months, if not years.

Look at these:

To my surprise:

  • Aragonese people are defined as an ethnic group or nation living in a historical region, (emphasis mine)

Then (this one is funny):

Others:

While for these, a categorical description is given (true? unreferenced?):

  • Andalusian people are not an "... ethnically distinct people because they lack two of the most important markers of distinctiveness: their own language and an awareness of a presumed common origin." (emphasis mine, of course)

The ambiguous:

  • Castilian people are the [current] inhabitants of those regions in Spain where most people identify themselves (self-identify) as Castilian (which would include anybody, regardless of origin [Romanian?] that lives therein and chooses to self-identify as a Castilian).

As expected:

  • Catalan people are [simply] the people from or with origins with Catalonia, an autonomous community of Spain (which would preclude, say, Catalan descendants in Mexico post-1936, because their ancestral origins predate the existence of the autonomous community in itself).

And last but not least:

  • Spanish people constitute [sic] the nationality and ethnic group of [the] natives of Spain. (Although to give the author some [dis]credit, s/he says that the Spanish nationality [which I assume does not refer to relationship of the citizen and the state], is "in essence multicultural").

Interesting, isn't it? In any case, a major revamp of those articles would be a time-consuming endeavor, but I thought I would share my findings with you.

Peace,

PS. If you know of any good Spanish restaurants [with real Spanish food] in Houston, let me know... I might have to head down there on a short visit... --the Dúnadan 02:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Dúnadan.
Havent checked all of those articles, but, on the face of it, I agree: most of those articles may be as nightmarish as they get (especially those I wasnt involved with :P) only overshadowed in infamy by the carnival of nationalisms and regionalisms of Spain. To be honest, my batteries for these things are at an ever lower minimum (if I am replying your inquiry at all is just because you are an old 'suspect' which at least deserves the consideration ;) let alone for comprehensive approaches like the one you are suggesting. I am not say that it is wrong, but I could hardly work at a slow incremental pace, one by one. And that is IF.
Yeah, you know very well, by experience (maybe I provided you with some ;) that the attitudes of people "working" on those articles often suck (you know, Spanish and "casi nativos" wikipedians are something best touch only with a bargepole when it comes to these things) so I'd rather not get involved...but dont forget that, in the end, I may be observing you, especially if you step on my any of my several toes ;)
As for the restaurants, 'Rioja' is the most reknowned for the Spanish community but I have never gone (it's shameful, yes). However, I did go to the (in)famous 'Mi Luna' and, well, if someone recommends that, I'd say is an ok restaurant (with quite a few chicks around ;) but it is not Spanish. Or would you consider Spanish a restaurant including cous cous in the menu?...or maybe the owner was just a visionary of immigration trends in Spain? :D
p.s. tortilla was quite genuine, though.
Bona cuina. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 01:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


Cous cous is a traditional dish in La Vall de Laguar, a Valencian town, in the Marina Alta comarca. Moorish heritage I guess. Surprising that you didn't know about that, but maybe you should broaden your outlook about the vast cultural differences between different nationalities in modern Spain, as you consider that introducing such pluralistic views in the Nationalities in Spain article is "nightmarish". Anyway, those of us interested in Valencian culture are well aware of the great diversity of Valencian cuisine and know about it. Even then, I wouldn't consider those people from Mi Luna are serving Cous cous because of it's connection to La Vall de Laguar. It's been my experience, and of many Valencian people such as myself, that "Spanish restaurants" are nothing but grotesque collages of sub-par emulations of different gastronomical traditions, such as the Basque, Valencian, Catalan, etc. I guess that's the result of decades of Spanish government's propaganda of a stereotype involving Paella with chorizo and sevillanas in Catalonia and Valencia. :) 212.225.203.5 (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Fiesta Nacional de España[edit]

Hi Mountolive,

In English this is usually either Hispanic day or The National Day of Spain though I've seen variations of the second. All the best, Valenciano (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Palmeral of Elche, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Date. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Crown of Aragon[edit]

Hello and Happy 2016! Sorry to bother you. I saw that you were one of the first editors of Crown of Aragon. I am trying to launch a Wikiproject to run more or less in parallel with the Spanish counterpart. I was wondering whether you would be interested in taking part. Thanks for yer time, Edmarinuk (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Autonomous communities of Spain[edit]

I have removed part of your addition to the above article, as it appears to have been copied directly from the source book, which is under copyright. — Diannaa (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 31 March[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Syrian Social Nationalist Party[edit]

I nave removed you addition to the above page, as it appears to have added copyright content copied from http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/28/the-eagles-of-the-whirlwind/, a copyright web page. — Diannaa (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

As requested here is some further information on copyright and how it applies to Wikipedia:

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

If you have any questions about this, please let me know. — Diannaa (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Catalan parliamentary election 2015[edit]

Hi, I have just read your message despite making some changes to the article already.

Let's see: the majority factor had no effect for the election being held, and if it had, it was negligible. You would have to put a source for that (and I mean a source saying that the election was held for the lack of a majority, that is, linking both situations (1. the lack of a majority, and 2. an election being held)), or otherwise you would be giving too much weight to a situation that is really not noticeable. Yes, CiU did not have a majority. And yes, CiU relied on ERC support. But keep in mind the political background for this: CiU was in power in 2012, when it held a comfortable 62-seat strong plurality and relied on PP-PSC-ERC support (CiU's position was so strong it could freely chose which party they wanted to ally at which time). Then, CiU embraced independence, and triggered an election for late 2012 (when one wouldn't have been due until late 2014). That is, CiU didn't had to trigger the election as they had a strong plurality, but they did: because of independence. After the 2012 election, not-independentist parties (PSC and PP) offered to support CiU and provide them with a majority if they abandoned the independence idea (and mathematically, it would have been possible), but CiU didn't and clinged on to ERC. Thus, it is not that ERC forced CiU into embracing independence under the threat of breaking the majority, but it was CiU on its own will that embraced independence, because they wanted to. And they called the 2015 election because they wanted to, just as they did in 2012. The lack of a CiU's majority issue is not worth noticing as one of the causes for election, since it wasn't. In fact, it was Mas who threatened ERC to give in to a joint list or not have any election at all.

You say that CDC and ERC are bitter rivals, but CDC has asked ERC for a joint coalition for two times to contest general elections (back in 2015, and now again) and it was because of ERC's rejection that they haven't come to fruition for now. You would need sources for making such statements that the election was held as a consequence of CiU having no majority, because independence was the main (and, as far as we can know, only) reason for that. Impru20 (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. Maybe you didnt notice that I removed the 'political instability' line which apparently drove your reversion of my previous edit. Everybody knows that CiU (well, CDC) chose independence "because they wanted to" and nowhere I stated that the election was called because CiU was short of a majority.
Let me put it another way to try to express my point better: do you think that CiU would have called a snap election if it have had an absolute majority?
I guess your reply is 'no' because they would have consumed the term instead. And that's what I mean that this background must be taken into account.
You replied really fast, so I let you coming to terms with my edition, maybe with this clear up it makes more sense to you, otherwise, let's discuss at the talk page :) MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 15:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I have just realised that you had already reverted much of my edit before engaging in discussion. MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 15:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Your previous edit kept the majority issue as something noteworthy, which wasn't.
You put "CiU, had been leading the Catalan regional government lacking an absolute majority, drawing tactical support for independence from its otherwise rival party, ERC. This had resulted in a term with modest lawmaking activity" in the same the sentence in which the snap election was mentioned. Then, you go on to make a connection between CiU lacking a majority and a modest lawmaking activity, and you put a link where it is nowhere to be seen that the modest lawmaking is a result of CiU lacking a majority and relying on ERC. That's WP:OR.
It doesn't matter what you put it to me, or what do I think or not (you even go as far as to answer for me... how kind of you). You can't just make those connections yourself without sourcing theme and putting those in the article, or you'd be originally researching. You need to source such statements. It is not my opinion. You can't just break Wikipedia rules for the sake of it.
Now, answering your question, no. That was the reason back in 2012, their self-imposed reason, to obtain an absolute majority for CiU back in 2012. That's surely not the reason for 2015 because: 1. CiU did not exist at the time of the 2015 election (so it couldn't obtain an absolute majority even if it tried. It didn't exist). 2. CDC aligned itself with ERC and stood within the JxSí coalition. In any case, the absolute majority-wish would have been for both of them. Yet that is absurd, since they both already had an absolute majority before. So that's surely not the reason. This is not a game of absolute majorities. Catalan politics have changed. Now everything revolves on the independence issue.
Well, I actually noted you on the revertion, since I did read your message on my talk after reverting. Impru20 (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I know about WP:OR. I suppose you know about WP:OWN, but, just in case: "no one, no matter how skilled, or how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page" because "all Wikipedia content − articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages − is edited collaboratively"MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 11:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
What's your point? WP:OWN implies that an editor feels possessive on its material and reverts others' edits on grounds that they don't have the right to do it or so on. Your pretended changes were reverted because 1) some were unsourced and could constitute WP:OR and 2) some others removed key information from the lead section of the article. Can't see any WP:OWN there, unless you're trying for me to understand that it's you the one that is acting as if the content you publish is yours (and that's way you keep having the "majority-issue" in the article without providing sources for it). So far, I think our continuous edits have helped improve the article quite a little bit, but I don't think that accusations such as yours are needed. Assume good faith, please. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

"snag"[edit]

Hi. Your editing is being discussed at Talk:Pi de les Tres Branques. You may wish to comment there. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 10:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canal de Castilla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santander (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you, Mr. Bot! MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 11:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ramon Martí Alsina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Anthemis chrysantha[edit]

I saw your question about the Anthemis chrysantha redirect at User talk:Joseph Laferriere#Anthemis Chrysanta. Joseph Laferriere hasn't been active on Wikipedia recently, so you're not likely to get a response from him. Please go ahead and write an article for this species. The reason it is a redirect is that multiple species have been given the name Anthemis chrysantha. The name can only correctly be applied to one species, while the remaining ones are biological homonyms. You can see the various homonyms here. The redirect is for a plant described as Anthemis chrysantha by Schur in 1866. J. Gay described an Anthemis chrysantha in 1848; Gay's plant is an accepted species and deserves an article if you'd like to write one. Plantdrew (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anthemis chrysantha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Natural park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)