Hi, Owdki. No need to apologize, I wasn't really offended, just amazed (try to imagine yourself in an analogous situation: you arrive at a new place willing to do something good, and suddenly you discover that you are just another example of a boring stereotype...). Yes, indeed, it was clear that you were making fun (and complaining at the same time), not trying to offend anybody. Anyway, in just a few days taking a look about what is going on in Wikipedia in Catalonia-related topics (in the broadest sense), reading articles, discussion pages and talk pages (since but also before I decided to participate) I realized many interesting things about the stupidity of some of my catalan colleagues that believe (at least sometimes it seems so) they are on a mission from God, but also something similar in the opposite part, when some other people assume the task of stopping them at any cost. One can extract many interesting consequences about the present state of things in some south-western corners of Europe. But, leaving every possible motivation aside, we all are (should be) here to work seriously and accurately trying to reach this ideal so-called NPOV (if I have understood something about what Wikipedia should be). See ya! -- Cnoguera ( talk) 14:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply

=P Thanks for your kind words, Cnoguera. The most important thing now is your will and your illusion: protect 'em. I'm sure you are here for share your knowledge and build an encyclopedia. Keep on. That's the fundamental. But... beware of the gates of hell, or you'll be catched by the catalan Mandelbrot maze, full of Byzantine dead-end streets and long discussions about "si una quimera que bordonea en el vacío puede comer las segundas intenciones" ;)

However, and trying to bring a drop of constructive critic, some of that "blindness" is reflected in some of your contributions, but I'll comment about your words expressed here only: you come from wp:ca. I cannot understand your surprise, as you say in the "new place" ( wp:en), when you have already some experience in wp:ca. Haven't you seen any of those "many interesting things" there? There are "many interesting things" there, and some of them are being solved thanks to Dúnadan (I'm being sincere, Jimbo bless you, my friend), veeeeeery slowly and with a great effort. I have my opinion about the "opposite part". I'm in the "opposite part". I have my idea about what an encyclopedia is, but I don't want to bore you with my concerns nor discourage you. Quite the contrary, we'll agree unconditionally that we all are (should be) here to work seriously and accurately trying to improve the Wikipedia. Best wishes and happy editing.

PD: how many times have you heard "territoris de parla catalana"? ;) -- Owdki ^talk 23:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi again, Owdki. First, thank you for deflowering my user talk page! ;) Well, I confess that my surprise was a little rhetoric (I know very well which are the political conflicts in my country(ies)). But what I didn't know is that I would find them so well represented in the wp:en (which, in a sense is a very good sign that means that all of our sensibilities have good people working on Wikipedia). In fact, my experience in wp:ca is still quite short and moreover I have been mostly working on non-political topics and antivandalism patrolling. Finally, since you are offering some free constructive criticism I wouldn't like to miss the opportunity to hear 'em from "the opposite" part ;). So, let me ask you: in what respects am I showing "blindness"? And, what is the problem with the expression "territoris de parla catalana"? I am not sure to catch your point (maybe you mean you prefer it to "Països Catalans" or the other way around?). Salut! -- Cnoguera ( talk) 12:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You're welcome! It has been my first experience! =D

Oh, man! Hahaha... =D Don't give me a nip!... "political conflicts in my country(ies)". Right now we should work a consensus about these words (I'm kidding). Currently I'm taking a break and this nice interchange is disturbing me (no t'ho prenguis malament, I need this break, and may be when I return this catalan Mandelbrot maze will have changed a little). I promise you that we'll continue it. We'll be in touch: keep on, good luck and happy editing!

PD (summarizing the explanation): "The most used term when any politic connotation wants to be avoided is "catalan-speaking territories" (El terme més utilitzat quan es vol evitar qualsevol connotació política és «territoris de parla catalana», from wp:ca), neutral language for neutral contentses (PPCC is politics). -- Owdki ^talk 07:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Don't worry, Owdki. I know some topics can be very exhausting if you are engaged long enough in never ending discussions, so if this is your case I will surely let you take your peaceful rest ;) Thank you anyway for your hints about the very issue of PPCC; I am realizing how much political connotation this expression is receiving from the "opposite part". So, see you next time! -- Cnoguera ( talk) 08:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Some reflexions in the PPCC talk page. Remember my PD, please. Cheers. -- Owdki ^talk 06:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, Owdki. Nice to see you are back in the discussion. Now I have seen your points crystal clear and they are of course enriching our current dispute in the article. Unfortunately I don't have much time right now to contribute. I hope to write something later. See you. -- Cnoguera ( talk) 10:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Owdki, you made some interesting comments [1] in the Països Catalans discussion page and then for some reason you erased them. Maybe you thought they would be ignored by us or something like this, but I think it would not have been the case. I understood they were a constructive criticism to my contributions (and those by Dunadan), and I always enjoy receiving clever, supported by reasoning and data, criticism. You were even showing us an extremely interesting Wikipedia essay where some guy was warning about the problem of nationalistic-minded editing in Wikipedia. I read it and happily I found that Catalonia-related articles were not among the examples cited by the author. We should be really careful and avoid the entries related to our culture from suffering this disease. I understand this warning at his full extend, i.e. as a warning against all kinds of nationalist manipulations of truth, no matter where they come from. Don't you think? It would be completely wrong and uncyclopedic, for instance, to write in our Països Catalans something like "The Catalan Countries are a nation without state, whose territories are nowadays divided into four different states....", this would be an obvious manipulation of facts and a defense of just one possible (and extremely controversial) point of view. But, for completely symmetric reasons, it would be wrong to write something like "The so-called països catalans are an illegal fallacy invented by catalan nationalists in order to push their independentist plans to obtain a sovereign and powerful state inside European Union". Of course, these are just extreme examples which all of us would agree to reject, but also small manipulation of things in one or the other direction must be avoided. That's why is so good to have people coming from different backgrounds in the discussions, to equilibrate things in such a way that each side keeps the opposite one from going too far, i.e. deviating from the NPOV. So, if what we really want to obtain here is this NPOV our writings must not be biased in any sense. We cannot claim that something is a nation when never has been constituted as such, but we also cannot deny the linguistic-cultural reality (I think that your proposal of creating the entry "Catalan-speaking countries" for the linguistic-cultural meaning and leave in "Països Catalans" only the political stuff would not faithful to reality, as it would neglect the real usages of the "Països Catalans" expression; if reality is complex, we must be able to deal with its complexity). I would like to work to obtain this equilibrium. These topics are not my professional and main interests and would be happy to devote my time to other topics, as I do in wp:ca, but I also would like wikipedia readers to find here neutral explanations about my country and culture.

Well, anyway, thanks for your comments (hopefully they are still in the history of the page). -- Cnoguera ( talk) 15:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, Cnoguera. I've erased my last comment in your talk page for the sake of the buen rollo. Undoit if you think that it's necessary. Several nice points in your words, and several points for discussion. I'll try to make a summary and I'll comment in PPCC. Thank you again. Best. -- Owdki ^talk 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Again, no need to apologize. I think I can understand what happened yesterday with your comments and sudden erasing. You are trying to bring your points to the discussion while being afraid that we will ignore them. You should not be worried about that. As I said, any reasonable argumentation is (should be) always welcome and helps our tasks here. Just state your views clearly and everything will be fine. If we disagree we will discuss, and finally we will produce some solution that, for sure, will not be what any of us would have produced alone but, probably, will be better. Parlant la gent s'entén, oi? -- Cnoguera ( talk) 17:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Fotre, Carles, vec que estàs lleugerament espés hui ;) Simplemente, com que tu deies que tots aqueixos són cosins germans, he continuat dient que les families, quan les coses es posen xungues, són les que tenen els disgustos més grans, pitjors que amb els amics i tal....ho pilles ara? :P Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 17:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Sí, sí, ara ho pillo. xD Encara hi ha vegades que em falla l'anglés... De totes maneres, i veient que ets valencià, aquestes enganxades familiars no sembla que les haguem de tenir tu i jo. Ho dic perquè, malgrat que és evident que partim de punts de vista diferents, sembla que som capaços d'anar-ho reconduint a bon port. Això sí, calen unes bones dosis de paciència (mútua eh!, i penso també en les importants dosis de saliva digital que li he fet gastar a l'Owdki) ;) -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 17:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hola Carles,

Just one by-the-way question. I am perfectly fine with your edits in Valencian introducing the concept of dialectS (plural).

The question is, shouldnt we use the same pattern in the Catalan language article? I mean, even if you consider only Catalonia proper, there are two major dialects which, actually, are more different between them than Valencian dialects are, respectively.

Should we change Catalan language article to include that dialectologic nuance there, too? or maybe should we remove this dialectologic nuance from Valencian, at least from the lead intro? Or maybe just "shut-your-mouth, Mountolive, you are such a hassle"? :D

Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 21:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Bon dia, Mountolive. You are right on your comment about differences between dialects being greater in Catalonia proper than in Valencia, sure. But I don't see how you propose to reflect it further in the articles. I have the impression that now everything is correct and acceptable. Let me elaborate. The main definitions in the corresponding articles are:

• Catalan pronounced /ˈkætəˌlæn/ (català IPA: [kətəˈla] or [kataˈla]) is a Romance language, the national language of Andorra, and a co-official language in the Spanish autonomous communities of the Balearic Islands, Catalonia and Valencia—where it is known as Valencian— and in the city of L'Alguer in the Italian island of Sardinia.
• Valencian (valencià) is the historical, traditional, and official name used in the Valencian Community (Spain) to refer to the language spoken therein, which is known elsewhere as Catalan (català). (BTW, now I realize I should do some more Use-mention edits here :D)

In my opinion, both are crystal clear, correct and make no reference to dialectological stuff. The dialectogical system is explained later (section 4) of Catalan article. And the nuance I made on Valencian comes also later in the section entitled "Different meanings". So, in my opinion it is correct as it is now. But, of course, if I am misunderstanding something or if you think of a better solution, please let me know.

Apa, que acabis de passar un bon cap de setmana i ja continuarem parlant-ne. -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 09:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I have done some new minor edits. Please check them and correct if necessary. -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 09:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, finally I reverted myself. I realized that carrying all the way the "set of varieties of" was boring and unnecessary. It is well explained later on. Sometimes my "ideals of precision" make things too complicated :D So thank you for expressing your concerns here, and my apologies for too many back-and-forth edits. -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 10:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

No problemo! You were right in the first place and I was wrong: indeed, the 'set of dialects' thing was in the 'different meanings', something really obvious which I didnt realize of!.

I see that, after all, you removed this particular wording. It was ok either way (with or without that reference) so we are fine anyway...I guess I only wanted to talk in a civil way about those topics for a little while, and, for that, you=the man!

My apologies! Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 23:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Estimat Carles. I think it would be important that we don't mimmick at the English wikipedia the really dissatisfying schizoid bilingual Valencian current state of affairs. In other words, things like "Elche/Elx" do NOT sit well in English (and they shouldnt sound ok either in Spanish or Valencian, but looks like we just got accustomed to this malaise down there).

In other words, if both terms are official (and they are) then we should use them interchangeably, roughly 50/50 of scattered Elches and Elxs all over the text.

The rationale of using Elx over Elche because is "native language" is faultering. Because, actually, the rate of Valencian speakers there is, roughly 40% for Valencian (Mountolive included ;) 60% of Spanish. No one can safely claim Spanish not being "native" there when it is actually majoritary. Talks of being the "original" language are not really convincing, because before the original Valencian was the original Arabic and so on all the way to Iberian.

I guess you won't have any problem in me replacing the Elche/Elx by either Elche or Elx interchangeably. But I would like, first, to hear from you.

Gràcies, com sempre. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 16:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, in fact, I didn't like the "Elche/Elx" thing for several reasons (mostly because this is not really a name!). It wasn't me the one to perform those changes, but a guy concerned with some "Catalan nationalist pressure". My edits tried to fix links and technical problems in the infobox that were caused by this bilingual solution. So, I agree with you that it is better to use in the text "Elche" or "Elx" interchangeably. But, you know as well as me that the usage of names is a delicate issue because it has a highly symbolic dimension for many people. We should be careful about that. I am not sure about what is the best solution in those cases. Which should be the frequency, the rate, in which we should be using each of those official names? What you say is true: Valencian is not the only native language anymore, and it cannot be called "original language" because it does not exist such a thing. Fine. Nowadays, after so many kinds of migration movements, there are in fact many native languages everywhere and in our countries only two of them are official. It seems clear that in an encyclopedic endeavor we must use the names in the official languages. But should they we used equally? Or should there be any preference for one of them? The argument that says that we should only use Valencian because it is the original one is not completely sound because, as you say, there were other "original languages" prior to it such as Arabic, Iberian and so on. However, this rationale does not close the discussion. The fact is that Valencian is still native for a great part of the population (in a rate varying from one region to another, of course) and it is recognized in the statute as the proper language to be preserved. That's not the case of other "original languages" nowadays. Therefore, it makes sense to keep the distinction in infoboxes between native name in Valencian and Spanish name. Furthermore, I would also encourage a bigger rate in the usage of the Valencian toponym in the main text. I would like to hear from you about that.

Perdona que hagi dit tantes coses que ja saps de sobres. No em volia fer pesat. Però quan els temes són delicats, i molt probablement hi ha gent que ens llegeix, que segueix l'evolució d'aquestes coses a la wikipedia i que estan preparats per intervenir-hi si no hi estan d'acord, més val ser explícit i curós en tot. T'agraeixo les ganes de col·laborar i de pactar les coses delicades.-- Carles Noguera ( talk) 09:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Exactly, Carles, you put it very well when you say that Elche/Elx...is not even a name! I think we are agreeing in 99% of the thing (the 1% left is the DNA departure between a human being and a fly ;)

Sóc jo el que t'agraeix la teua excelent disposició a parlar sobre aquestes cosetes que haurien de ser ben fàcils però que, de sobte, esdevenen les més complicades. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 14:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Senyor Noguera! He deixat un missatge a la talk page de Catalan nationalism que algú ha canviat sense cap tipus de consens :P Com et dic allà, millor ho deixem com estava mentres que les coses es van calmant (o s'acaben de cremar) en d'altres articles i ja ho reprenem quan haja tornat la calma...o la guerra, però amb les coses més clares ;) Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 13:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Així és, mestre: la cosa s'està posant que dóna ganes de plorar. Tú no has viscut els pitjors moments, però potser tindràs el "plaer" ben prompte, perque està 'en el canto de un duro' que la cosa esclate, si és que no ho ha fet ja....açò és un fàstic, tio. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Nooooooo, I am not angry at you. I supposed you were out. Actually, you are the last of the "casi nativo" gang whom I consider being in the same page I am! So no worries at all, I wasnt referring to you, Carles.

Look, Benimerin is -to me- one of the two worst users I ever came across (and there are a few already). There is nothing to be discussed with him, he's like a Bot, like a CataBot :D (and, what a shame, I think he's born in the same hometown as me, I am even afraid that I may even know him personally from our local Casal Jaume I...what kind of place is that producing Mountolive and Benimerin!? we're fucked up over there, aren't we? :D)

When Benimerin is around here on parole, that's when I typically go away. What can I say? The only thing would be having someone "casi nativo" to explain him that English wikipedia is not a Casal Jaume I, not even close, but I understand this is not a nice task and we are not here in wikipedia to do kindergarten functions which should have been done at home/school prior to editting here.

So, all in all, this sucks.

p.s.I came here to reply and I see my last post speaking of the "worst moments" that you maybe would have the "pleasure" to experience...well, all I can say is that I didnt know myself that I have prophetic qualities! :D for, indeed, that is how low it gets...sadly, now you know it... Mountolive _{spare me the suspense} 13:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Since you edited Crown_of_Aragon recently, you will probably be interested on checking the RFC on one of the editors there. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sclua and feel free to comment there -- Enric Naval ( talk) 17:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply

I would like to apologise to you for my comments' removal in Dunadan's debate, but I swear to God I can't stand those fallacies some users want everybody to believe. I, of course, will be glad to continue collaborating and/or debating with you on whatever matter. Thanks for your comprehension. Cheers. -- MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 21:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hola, respecte l'orientació de les 4 barres a la plantilla cataloniageostub s'hauria de recordar que en època medieval, que és quan es va originar la senyera catalana, els símbols es portaven en estendarts, que eren verticals. I per tant els pals o barres anaven en aquest sentit. Posteriorment, i vist que tots els països pengen les banderes en horitzontal, s'ha produït el fet que la senyera es pengés en horitzontal i les barres quedessin girades quan la bandera és hissada. Però, si t'hi fixes, en els escuts (que no han acabat girats horitzontalment com les banderes) s'ha mantingut la verticalitat dels pals . A la resta de països coincideix la orientació de la bandera amb la de l'escut.

I un bon exemple que reforça aquesta verticalitat el tenim en la recent actualització de la bandera de la ciutat de Barcelona (que va substituir la que hi havia durant el règim franquista). Quan es van reunir un seguit d'especialistes en heràldica van determinar que, donada la posició horitzontal de la bandera, en dos dels quarters hi havia d'haver els 4 pals en vertical.

Moltes gràcies pels teus comentaris. Els he portat a la corresponent pàgina de discussió per tal de debatre la qüestió amb la resta d'usuaris interessats. -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 07:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Please put your comment on this [2] talk page and in English language so everyone can understand it and comment on it. Not all Wikipedians understand Catalan as user:Cnoguera and I do! Also, don't change the stub before reaching new consensus; That's the way it works here (to prevent an edit war as it happened before). Besides that, would you might telling us if you have an account at the Catalan WP so we can contact you directly (since your IP isn't static)?. Thanks, Eduard -- Floridianed ( talk) 03:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Carles. Thanks for your effort. Please take a look at the talk page and comment on my compromise. Thanks, Eduard -- Floridianed ( talk) 22:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Time to take another look if you want. Regards, Eduard -- Floridianed ( talk) 03:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there C! I've been looking around and I haven't really found any change in the Box. You probably are busy, but I'm curious as to how you are going to edit it. I still think it would be more important to have a Valencian traditions...and below a link to Catalan Speaking World, as this seems much more logical. Anyhow, I'm looking forward to your edit. regards! -- Arthurbrown ( talk) 11:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply

If you want we can request for mediation. There are a lot of pages involved, and also we could add the geographic-hierarchy issue. I'm tired, that is, fins els collons. Cheers. -- Owdki ^talk 15:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I've undo my edits and I've wrote some thoughts on Mountolive's talk page, some of them about you. Please, read it. Cheers. -- Owdki ^talk 17:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Carles.

I filed (or, more exactly, someone did for me, as I am such a dummy! :D) an SSU on LuisGomez111 regarding the crazyness lately at this article.

I will be out with little-to-none access to computer starting in a few hours, then back by friday. Please feel free to pay a look at the events and contribute if you feel like so doing here [3]

Have a good weekend. Mountolive _{le déluge} 17:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I've seen it. You did the right thing. I mean, even if the result has been quite unexpected, it has been proved that there were some irregular things in the behaviour of some users. -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 16:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Ok, there are people who say that valencian cuisine is a part of catalan cuisine but they are only those that have pancatalan politics ideas, the rest of the people can see the reality and don't say that kind of things. In fact if you read a book of spanish cuisine if valencian cuisine hasn't his own chapter is together with murcian cuisine, not catalan. Valencian cuisine is not a part of catalan cuisine, and of course it doesn't share most of the dishes (please visit the oficial valencian webpage about gastronomy and you'll see that almost all of valencian typical dishes are diferents than in catalonia.) Moreover in catalan cuisine there were many false things that I fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Embolat ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, Embolat! Thanks for your comments. You made me realize that this article is poorly written and it is in urgent need of references. I have made my proposal in Talk:Catalan_cuisine. -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 08:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, carles, thanks for helping with the cuisine article. It's a shame any article on catalan culture has to apologise for its existence. I understand why you say you are giving up on the Països Catalans project. I feel like giving up too, there's no dialogue just endless deletions and personal diatribes. On the other hand, it would be good to put references in, but then we just argue over whether they are valid. If I put Josep Pla in, I know he will instantly be disqualified. But really, they are already dying to argue that there is not even a unified cuisine in Catalonia proper. Perhaps Catalonia is really just in our heads? Yes, we inventied it all in order to order cocas in Guardamar. :) Una abraçada. -- Espencat ( talk) 11:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree absolutely, and thats why this article has always said that Valencian cuisine is considered both part of Catalan and Spanish cuisine, for the two reasons you mention (cultural and state). Unfortunately, some just won't except that culture has any value, at least as long as they are convinced monoculturalists (if it's catalan, it can't be spanish...???) Obviously its richer if we keep both opinions, but I am now going to try deleting both, as neither on its own makes any sense. -- Espencat ( talk) 13:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC) reply

No I wasnt angry at you! why should I? when exactly was that that I made you feel a bit 'cremat'? Ostres, disculpa, mira que ho vaig pensar...."s'haurà emprenyat per la meua culpa?" però no recorde què vaig fer...imagine que per això que parlàrem i que tu digueres d'obrir la "caixa de Pandora" i tal... Ho vaig entendre i encaixar bé, en el sentit de que potser cal fer aquest esforç, però ni tu ni jo estem per hòsties d'aquestes full time.

Tu saps el que faria molt de bé? reactivar el wikiproject catalan-speaking-whatever (canviant-li el nom, eh? :P) i que ens invitàreu formalment a gent com Maurice, jo mateix i d'altres. Estaria bé que hi establireu una jerarquia (tú com a cap ;) que permetera desautoritzar al radicalitzat de turn (Joanot?, ...... fill the blank space with your preferred name). I treballar tots plegats. Però treballar tots plegats en coses que no tinguen res a vore amb política i llengua. Collons, que no hi ha economia productiva a Catalunya? que no hi ha una geografia i climatologia? que no hi ha una història anterior a la Guerra de Successió? que no hi han d'altres temes sobre Catalunya i "Catalan speaking countries" (sic) per parlar-ne?

Quan tindriem això acabat, podriem plantejar-nos fer d'altres temes d'aquestos de "llengua i política" que aparentment tant ens agraden discutir (bueno, a ti i a mi no, però you know what I mean...). El problema és sempre acabem al mateix 'sumidero' i, mentrestant, la casa sin barrer...per posar-te un exemple, com a 'perro viejo' ja veig vindre que, si parlarem d'economia...saps per on hom voldria començar? bingo, pel finançament de l'Estat! :D

Bueno, per no ser tan derrotista, al menys diria que els maleits temes de "llengua i política" estàn més o menos raonablement (de)construits (al menys els que jo estic al tanto) per tal de tindre a les dues parts raonablement insatisfetes...Podria ser pitjor, per les dos bandes, creu-me...

En fi, tot això de dalt és una palla mental, no t'ho prengues massa seriosament, perque ni tu ni jo hem de construir wikipedia ni som responsables. La idea de wikipedia és bona, però té limits i, per bé o per mal, nosaltres topem amb ells. Bueno, sempre s'apren algo, sobretot a negociar ;)

En quant a això de que t'agradaria que algú et rellevara...hehe, quit your illusions! jo estic pensant el mateix des de fa pràcticament anys i...mira, aquí estem, encara donant-li voltes al 'pandero'...

I sobretot, sempre que t'hages sentit ofés o maltractat per mi, no dubtes en donar-me una bescollada, que jo al menys compte amb tu i no m'ho puc permetre això de que t'ofengues. Una abraçada pel meu amic 'panca' ;)

Mountolive _{le déluge} 17:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hola company! Primer de tot disculpes per haver pagat amb tu el meu wikistress i cansament general per l'eterna situació d'encallament que tenim aquí. Realment hauria estat millor parlar-ne directament i au, com tu mateix dius. Mira, el que em va fotre en realitat no era el tema de la plantilla ditxosa ja que allí estàvem discutint amb la nostra wikietiqueta impecable de sempre, sinó l'enganxada culinària a Talk:Catalan cuisine (ara sona fins i tot ridícul :D). Va ser allò de "I can't believe how people can get to this extremal political bias" o alguna cosa per l'estil, quan jo el que intentava era només posar tags de "citation needed" i al cap d'un temps eliminar el que no es pogués documentar. Suposo que una cosa que em fa particularment vulnerable és el fet (decisió no sé si encertada o no que vaig prendre a l'inici) de treballar aquí a cara descoberta, amb nom real i amb links que fàcilment porten fins i tot a informació personal. Això fa que algunes crítiques em facin més mal (com les que em féu el seu dia l'Owdki, per exemple), perquè són directament dirigides a la meva persona real i no a cap misteriós pseudònim. I res, era només això, que de segur no havies dit tampoc amb mala intenció i que a més devia ser un comentari general dirigit a qualsevol que pretengués una formulació en context de Països Catalans.

Pel que fa a la teva proposta, t'he de dir que la rebo amb alegria i esperança. Tens tota la raó quan dius que hi ha moltíssima feina per fer i que mai no podem arribar-hi per culpa de la maleïda abraçada mortal en què ens atrapen els temes polítics i purament simbòlics. De fet -ja ho deus haver notat en algun comentari que de tant en tant deixo anar- jo penso que el que necessitem en els temes relacionats amb les terres de parla catalana-valenciana és un tractament polidament neutral. Ningú no hauria de pretendre usar la Wikipedia com a pamflet polític (en Maurice de fet té tota la raó quan denuncia això, però només veu la meitat del problema crec): no ha de servir ni per donar consistència fàctica a una nació que en el millor dels casos tot just està en controvertida construcció en el món real, ni tampoc ha de servir per pretendre amagar la complexitat cultural dels estats sota l'aparença d'una falsa homogeneïtat amb l'excusa del marc legal vigent. Sé que saps perfectament a què em refereixo i, que jo sàpiga, només hi ha una recepta per aconseguir aquest objectiu: les directives del famós NPOV. En aquest cas el que cal és mantenir equilibradament una doble aproximació a les realitats que ens ocupen: el punt de vista "estatalista" i el "culturalista", tots dos legítims i necessaris per donar-ne una autèntica descripció enciclopèdica. Per tant trobo que sí, que seria molt bo pel projecte comptar amb gent com vosaltres formalment involucrats. Ara bé, jo no sóc ningú per decidir unilateralment quina ha de ser l'evolució d'un projecte que ja feia temps que durava quan jo hi vaig arribar i que havia fet una quantitat admirable de bona feina. Per tant, el que faré tot seguit és sondejar altres companys que últimament semblen estar també força cremats amb l'esperança que vulguin reincorporar-se a la feina amb ànims renovats i havent fet prèviament un bon examen de consciència (tots nosaltres) per no repetir errors del passat.

T'agraeixo una vegada més l'excel·lent disposició per treballar plegats en benefici de la wikipedia. Una abraçada!-- Carles Noguera ( talk) 10:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hola, a mi m'encantaria poder col·laborar, i em sembla magnífica la idea de treballar en alguna cosa que no sigui sempre el mateix maleït tema. Tanmateix, vaig molt, molt just de temps (ja sabeu que la wiki està formada bàsicament per estudiants i jubilats, i jo malauradament he perdut fa poc el primer estatus i em falta encara un bon camí per assolir el segon), però m'agradaria col·laborar molt esporàdicament amb el que pugui. Respecte la possibilitat que us incorporeu altres visions al projecte, em sembla una idea meravellosa, però ja sabeu que una gran part del cansament que em produeix la wiki prové de la tossuderia d'en Maurice (que és capaç d'exigir que en un resum de 3 paràgrafs de la llengua catalana s'esmenti sobretot que no hi ha l'obligació de rotular els establiments en aranès o castellà). Així doncs, altres visions i opinions: benvingudes siguin. Atacs injustificats i batalles interminables per mantenir continguts de dubtosa qualitat: no, gràcies. En tot cas, tal com dic, ara no puc passar per aquí i vosaltres treballeu molt més que jo, així que us deixo la responsabilitat a vosaltres de fer el que cregueu millor per tal de millorar els articles (Mountolive: perdona que no t'hagi respost, però no tinc la teva pàgina a la meva llista de seguiment i no havia vist que m'havies respost.).-- Xtv - ( my talk) - ( que dius que què?) 11:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Estic d'acord en part però hi ha dos factors que em preocupen. Un és que la llengua i la política només son dos punts d'iceberg de la cultura nostra. En quant parlem de qualsevol tema, el més normal és que algú ve i intenta imposar únicament la visió estatalista (diria clàssica). Això vol dir que tantíssims articles es queden encallats per una discussió del marc o del nom. Un exemple: Geografia de Catalunya? Doncs a veure si això inclou la Catalunya Nord o no. I així fins sempre. El segon factor és que quan es troba amb gent com Mountolive o tu, en general es pot arribar a un acord i passar a pencar, fent el gruix de l'article. Però com pot passar tant des dels que tiren pel costat nacionalista o culturalista com des dels que volen parlar nomes d'estats i esborrar la cultura com a marc pràctic en tots els casos, sempre en ve un que es concentra en demanar l'impossible, o que acceptes únicament una fòrmula espanyolista, i en general és limita a canviar una i altra vegada les paraules referents a Catalunya, sense aportar molt a l'article. Igualment quan veiem això, nosaltres tendim a imitar-los, intentant a protegir potser un acord previ, però sense poder continuar fent feina.

A hores d'ara les articles de cuina van molt millor i sobretot gràcie a la solució mínima de "ni tu ni jo" - ni parlem d'Espanya i dels PPCC. Tanmateix trobe que es veurà qui aporta més al gruix de l'article i són aquells que ens mereixen el respecte, perquè saben superar - ni que fóra momentàniament - la ideologia i escriure coses específiques i si pot ser referenciades.

En tot cas jo continue veient-me com un recurs per a corregir catalanismes i castellanismes en anglès, ja que sóc britànic de naixement. I clar, la visió estatalista és dominant, i mereix respecte per això, però que els PPCC no tinguen stat no vol dir que no existeix la cultura catalana.

Una salutació a Mountolive i a tu-- Espencat ( talk) 13:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC). reply

warning

Ostres mestre...no t'ho prengues a mal, però em sembla que t'has llançat a una piscina sense mirar abans el nivell d'aigua. Si lliges altra vegada el que vaig posar, et comentava que aquesta proposta que sembla que t'ha engrescat és una palla mental.

Siguem realistes, Carles, tu penses que l'Xtv i Maurice trobaràn la manera? o el Dúnadan i jo mateix? Això que jo et proposava com a exercici teòric necessita nova gent i noves actituds. I això es diu molt més ràpid que es fa. Per posar més exemples de les coses que no funcionen, tal i com es veuen des de 'l'altre costat', a mi em va fotre molt quan un dels membres d'aquest wikiproject va destrossar el consens que teniem a Valencian Community i ningú d'aquest wikiproject va tindre lo que cal per dir-li que s'ho prenguera suau...al contrari, sembla que ja els hi venia bé que algún radicalitzat 'arrimara el ascua a su sardina', embolica que fa fort i anem fent...

N'hi han un munt de coses a resoldre abans que això poguera començar a caminar. Per exemple, jo m'opose a que el projecte es diga "Catalan speaking countries" (l'únic country que jo conec d'aquestos és Andorra...). Fins i tot, si m'apreteu, no tinc res clar que aquest projecte haja de funcionar incloent tots aquestos 'countries'. Més aïna hauria d'anar individualment per "country", no fer taules d'aquestes on estàn mesclats 'xurras i merinas', falles, caganer, sardanes, nit de sant joan...tot plegat com si estigueren connectats per alguna cosa que no siga...que són tradicions espanyoles...és a dir, que jo no vec correcte que es posen totes aquestes coses sota el mateix títol quan no són comunes a tots aquestos territoris.

Per mi, sota d'un legítim punt de vista culturalista és dificil negar que hi ha un flaire de 'nation building', desitjat o no amb el que jo no hi estic d'acord i...,bo, independentment de que jo estiga d'acord o no, simplement no és real, no existeix aquesta nació ni la volen la majoria de valencians, balears i catalans.

És per això que, més que un wikiproject catalan-speaking-whatever, necessitem un wikiproject catalan-valencian-balearic-whatever-issues i ens deixem ja d'hosties de què és el que parla la gent, que això ja caurà pel seu propi pes, no?...fins i tot, jo no vec clar que el sol fet de que aquestes gents parlen una mateixa llengua siga sustent suficient per tindre un wikiproject. Com et vaig comentar una vegada (i em sembla que no et va agradar l'exemple :P) els territoris no parlen res i, per exemple, n'hi ha molta gent a València que no parla valencià. I dels que ho parlen, ho cregues o no, la majoria no té idea de que es un dialecte del català. Lo mateix es pot dir de l'Alguer, Balears...aleshores que fem amb aquesta gent? no li interessa al wikiproject? només ens interessen els catalano-valenciano-majorquí parlants? i als altres que els hi donen? si ens posem més estrictes, per què no fer un wikiproject pels catalano-valenciano-majorquí parlants que voten opcions més o menys nacionalistes? seria més honest per tots i funcionaria millor.

Gran part del problema ve d'aquesta indefinició en quant a l'enfocament d'allò que anomenem "Catalanisme", el qual, quan convé (com per exemple aquí a wikipedia) és purament cultural i, quan convé, es torna polític i/o nacionalista. Aquesta indefinició és molt bona per l'anomenat "Catalanisme" (whatever that means) perque li permet arribar a tots els puestos, a vegades amb un barret, d'altres amb un altre barret. Però, per una enciclopèdia, és virtualment impossible de categoritzar la seua indefinició i oportunisme (això d'oportunime no ho dic en plan pejoratiu, si no en plan darwinià ;) i crea aquestes disfuncions en les que ens atrapem i perdem la vida...matxo, això és el laberint del minotaure i jo no li vec eixida i no ens pertoca a nosaltres aquí a wikipedia definir què és això de "catalanisme". Hem de ser humils i no acceptar reptes que ens venen grans...

En fi, aquesta "palla mental" que et llançava era més per iniciar un apropament entre tu i jo, explicar la meua posició i potser fer pases xiquiques, incrementals, poc a poc. Però a la que ja arriben més usuaris i/o ens fixem grans objectius, la realitat és que, siguem realistes, la cosa es 'desmadra' i tornem al business as usual. I disculpa el rotllo...

Tu, vec que aquestes minivacances que t'has pres t'han donat molta empenta, diria que massa i tot, perque fins i tot et veig amb cor d'explorar les meues idees més grillades! Desafortunadament, si jo et vaig engrescar, jo mateix hauré de ser qui et pose els peus a terra...però sempre amb amor ;)

Ja anirem parlant. Mountolive _{le déluge} 15:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Vaja, doncs quina decepció... Les teves paraules escrites sonen més serioses del que et penses, company. En fi... ja sabia que era difícil, però valia la pena intentar-ho perquè el que necessitem és, inevitablement treballar plegats. I no em penedeixo pas gens del toc que he donat a la resta de companys, perquè si passen per aquí i s'ho miren una mica segurament en trauran algun profit de reflexionar un moment sobre l'estat de coses que tenim aquí. Tampoc em penedeixo de les declaracions d'intencions que ha afavorit que féssim aquí, totes prou positives i benintencionades (encara que els teus darrers comentaris cap al projecte em semblen massa destructius). Deixa'm acabar de dir unes quantes coses clares, com a avís per a navegants en general i per tu en particular. Si entenc alguna cosa de què va tot plegat, aquest projecte no és nacionalista. Senzillament tria un marc de treball. És nacionalista un projecte que tria com a marc l'estat espanyol? No, oi? Senzillament tria un cert marc per treballar. Nosaltres fem el mateix: triem un àmbit que històricament ha compartit llengua i cultura (amb tota les precisions i addicions de complexitat que calgui fer aquí). Només hi poden treballar els nacionalistes? O només hi poden treballar els catalanoparlants? No! És clar que no. Per què hauria de ser així de restringit? Hi poden treballar tots aquells que tinguin interès per algun dels temes que cobreix. I de fet és absolutament necessari que ho facin de diverses sensibilitats (nacionalistes d'un tipus o d'un altre, no nacionalistes, catalano-parlants o no, ecologistes o no, .... i no vull allargar absurdament la llista d'exemples) per poder cobrir tots els punts de vista i arribar a l'anhelada neutralitat. És per això que em prenia la teva proposta seriosament, perquè és precisament el que cal. Però si preferiu una posició frontista, de resistència contra el lobby com de vegades us agrada dir, molt bé. També és una possibilitat. I al capdavall també funciona, perquè al final també acabem sent tots raonables i negociem les coses i assolim consensus. Així que vinga, endavant i paciència, bona fe i perseverència. Ens fan bona falta. -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 16:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Ho sent. Mai voldria emprenyar-te. Però siguem realistes, tu tens temps per fer tota aquesta tasca de redreçament? Jo, no i a tu se t'ha oblidat ja com de lleig es pot posar això.

Però, mira, jo confie amb tu, si tu vols liderar aquesta idea que et llançava i reactivar aquell projecte, jo estaré tranquil perque tu sabràs com fer-ho i, si cal, acceptaràs les revisions que algú altre amb idees distintes puga fer. Aleshores tampoc ve al cas decepcionar-se. Jo ja t'ho estic dient: confie en tu. Però no em pots demanar que invertisca el temps que no tinc amb coses que tenen un potencial per frustrar-me la vida diaria que no fa falta que et comente, perque ja ho saps tu per experiència pròpia.

Res de 'frontisme'. No sé a qui et refereixes quan parles de si "preferiu una posició frontista", preferiu qui? jo parle per mi mateix. Això, si acàs, és un altre retret que li podria fer amb el projecte, que, com et comentava dalt, involuntariament és presa fàcil del nacionalisme, ens agrade o no. I allà és on està el quid de la qüestió, si sou capaços d'organitzar això i mantindre a ratlla als flipats que editen des de l'ordinador del casal de les JERC/JERPV després d'un parell de cerveses, aleshores haureu fet una pasa de gegant.

Com que no ha de faltar l'autocrítica, jo et reconec ara que sóc suspicaç amb moltes de les coses que usuaris d'aquest projecte escriuen. Tinc raons per ser-ho, però lo fàcil és caure en una falàcia pars pro toto i caure en coses d'eixes tipo "lobby". Amb això tens raó. El tema és que, com et comentava, aquest penó de la reconquesta com a bandera única dels "Catalan-speaking countries" ja em fa malfiar. Tu saps tan bé com jo que això s'asembla molt a unes determinades opcions polítiques, no?...tot i que, ho torne a dir, potser aquesta malfiança és un problema meu i jo m'ho hauria de fer mirar. Que no et capiga dubte que amb més usuaris com tu i amb una direcció potent en la linia del que estem parlant, jo demanaria entrar en aquest projecte (tot i que es lliure) i peregrinaria a Montserrat si calguera... Mountolive _{le déluge} 16:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Bé, com a aclariment de posicions i demostració de bona voluntat per totes bandes això ja ha estat ben útil. Perdona si jo també he fet una generalització injustificada i t'he atribuït actituds típicament mauricianes (per allò del frontisme i del lobby). Tens tota la raó en unes quantes coses que estàs dient. No ens hem de carregar una responsabilitat excessiva. Ningú no ens paga per fer res d'això i hi ha maneres molt més divertides de perdre el temps, en efecte ;) Però, ja se sap, de mica en mica s'omple la pica i si nosaltres hi posem la nostra part en forma de moderació i de dic de contenció dels vandalismes que ens arriben dels extrems (i no vénen només dels casals de les JERC), ja estem fent una gran contribució. I au, tornem a la feina i matem la discussió en llengua no anglesa abans que ens piquin (amb raó) la cresta. Salut! -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 16:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Sí, al menys bona voluntat no en falta... :P

You have my ok if you wanted to block copy this exchange and move it to the wikiproject in question's talk page. Even if it is in Catalan (and Valencian, respectively :P) I do think it could be interesting to make this move, because they actually belong there. Mountolive _{le déluge} 17:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Maurice solament s'enfronta amb qui no vol dialogar i prova d'aixo es que no em recordo haverme enfrontat amb tu Carles. I sincerament, no sé si utilitzar el meu nom com exemple de "radicalisme" (Pot ser?) es pot considerar com una "demostració de bona voluntat". Sempre t'he considerat una persona inteligent, capaç de parlar sense rencors i capaç de valorar tant les virtuts dels altres com d'admetre els errors dels seus. Asi que si us plau, no em fallis ara. Creo haver-te demostrat que quan se'm pregunta amb educació responc amb educació, i de vegades, fins i tot puc arribar a convèncer-vos, així que fes-me el favor de no tornar a usar lo de "actituds típicament mauricianes". I ara, previa disculpa per interrompre la vostra conversa i el meu pobre catalá, em retiro a sopar amb la meva xileneta. -- MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 19:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC) reply

I prefer not to move this conversation to the wikiproject talk page because it violates the rule of discussing everything in English. It is true that many important things about the spirit of the project have been said here, but there will be many occasions to repeat them elsewhere in English when necessary. As for Maurice's last comment, I have presented my apologies in his talk page for the potentially offensive and misleading formulation that I used when referring to him. -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 17:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC) reply

And I of course accept them. Thank you very much for them. I have always expressed my opinion that if every member of that wikiproject was to discuss and talk in the same conciliatory way as you always do, the conforntation would not exist. -- MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 20:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Benvingut de nou xiquet! És un plaer i espere que aguantes la viqui-onada... Una abraçada. -- Espencat ( talk) 20:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC) reply

No thanks, I don't work with chauvinist trolls

I'm very sorry to disappoint you, but it's not possible to reach any possitive attitude with Maurice nor Mountolive since they waste time to ban any contribution from all Catalan-speaker user. They impose their own personal, and chauvinist opinions over the external sources we're giving all-time in all discussions. They want to impose some kind of bad-called "consensus" when there are facts and external references that don't endorse arguments forced by them. The consensus they talk about is completelly fake, because it's pushed only from both them against a group of numerous users (near ten users). Want they about discussing things not related to language, territory and colective conception of the people related to this?. No, thanks. If both they're really interested about this, they can work on this alone, they don't need our help. I completelly agree with the opinion of a Valencian user, like as me, that both they are simply trolls and it's bufa la gamba, so it's impossible to work in articles related to Valencian Country. In all case, I'm pleased by your interest to involve me in any improvement about working in Valencian related articles. Salutacions. -- Joanot Martorell ✉ 11:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

So, that's really a pity. The fact is that whether you like or not wikipedians (just by being so) do work together, as a matter of fact, and thus it seems better to try to do it in a more friendly spirit. If you think that some of the so-called consensus that seem to exist in the articles is not really that, then don't you worry: anything can be discussed again (needless to say, while being compliant with all wikipedia policies) in order to find a better consensus. -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 13:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I've tried this, and you can see yourself wich was the result. In my opinion, his attitude is practically equal as an Internet Troll. -- Joanot Martorell ✉ 09:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Hola de nou, Carles.

A la teua darrera edició a PPCC vas treure "Catalan or its variants" tot dient al summary edit "This is an odd distinction. It seems to imply that in some territories the language as a whole is official, while in others only some of its variants are". Bueno...mmmmh...de fet és justament això el que volia dir!

In other words, Catalan is not official in Valencia, but Valencian is; "Catalan", as such, is not recognized in Valencia, that is why I added the "or its variants" line regarding its official status. Am I meaning myself better now? Mountolive _{fedeli alla linea} 03:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

It's very funniest and ridiculous. So Spanish is not official in Valencia, but Castillian is. If you're repeating this as a mantra from more than one year ago it would sound sweet nowadays. -- Joanot Martorell ✉ 18:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd like to comment, please. Perhaps this could be argued for l'Alguer, where only Alguerès is official, but throughout the Spanish state the Supreme Court decides what is official and what is not, and all their sentences say that Valencian is not a variety of Catalan but (Western) Catalan. In the same line those who are qualified in catalan are automatically qualified in Valencian. All this means that Catalan is as official in Valencia as it is in Catalonia, and a different name doesn't imply that it is in any way different - the Court's decisions say just the opposite. -- Espencat ( talk) 12:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey, Espencat.

In all honesty, what I dont like from people supporting -an otherwise legitimate- Catalanist (whatever that may mean) point of view is the fact that they tend to use different hats at ease.

What I mean is that, when it is convenient, those editors may cling to what is official like if it was in the Ten Commandments tables. The most extreme case is the -totally regrettable- incident of the infoboxes, where those editors will only accept the official local name; in the Valencian Community that is Comunitat Valenciana and in the Balearics that is Illes Balears. In those cases those users will not allow the usage of the at least as common (if not more) Comunidad Valenciana or Islas Baleares based on the officiality status. Ok.

Then, in this case, hats have already changed. What is official (and super-majoritary, by the way) is "Valencian", no doubt. But we dont like it, so then let's delve into high court paperwork to find our ad hoc result....ha! you see? there is one, two, three court decissions saying is Catalan (self-fulfilled prophecy at its best) so why bother by the fact that the offcial name is Valencian and by the fact that 99,9% of Valencians call it Valencian when we have that court sentence?

I abandoned the regrettable debate on the official names of the infobox, and conceded. If people was colaborative enough, those users I was mentioning would have allowed the Spanish version of the name a long time ago, because both Spanish and Valencian/Catalan are official in Valencia and Balearics, and because, actually, the Spanish version is the commonest. But those editors were really strict on the officiality question and I just let it go because the "official status" reasoning is technically impeccable (even though is definitely disappointing in terms of community).

Now, I am reasonably expecting in return that my technicaly impeccable official criteria on this (which, besides, is supported by every day usage of the term, very unlike the infobox case) is not challenged based on an obscure court decission which no one other than the lawyers ever read.

In other words, on the face of disputing elements, we need a ruling criteria. If it is officiality, then we will have to take it, whether we like it or not. If it is not official status, then by all means let me know....I am here sharpening my sword, just in case ;) Mountolive _{fedeli alla linea} 15:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi! Now I will reply only to Mountolive's first question in this thread (about hat-switching, common English terminology, official names and all this complex stuff I will try to have some deep discussion elsewhere because it involves maaaaaaaaaany issues and it has maaaaaaany consequences). So, well, I think you will agree with me that we should be consistent in the treatment we are giving to the terminological problem for naming Catalan/Valencian. We have agreed in many places that they are two names for the same language. Of course, it is not on our hands to decide such a thing: it has been stipulated by the competent institutions (see AVL's official resolution). This implies that Catalan/Valencian is one and only one language, which is pluricentric, has two alternative (official) names and two regulating institutions which issue slightly different standards. Being coherent with this, and willing to satisfy all sensibilities and keep a well balance for both official denominations, we are often in wikipedia articles writing things such as "Catalan/Valencian", "Valencian (as Catalan language is known here)", "Catalan (known as Valencian in the Valencian Community)" and so on. This means that we understand, in particular, that Valencian is an official language in the Valencian Community which, as declared in the autonomy statute, is regulated by the AVL who, at his turn, officially declares that it is the same language known as "Catalan" elsewhere. Ergo, Valencian language (i.e. Catalan language) as a whole is official in the Valencian Community. It is written nowhere that only a part of this language is official and, hence, we should be very careful in avoiding to introduce any kind of confusion about that. Am I making my point any clearer now? -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 12:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear Carles, Yes, we have agreed that Valencian and Catalan are different names for basically the same language, well, not only we do, but most people does. Fine. But I am not sure whether I am buying the "we should be consistent in the treatment we are giving to the terminological problem", does that mean that we'd better call it Catalan only and side its variants? I wouldnt agree if that was the case.

Anyway, just disregard the above paragraph, because I think we are losing focus here. You say that the language is one and only along the usual creed. But, wait a minute, because the formulation "Catalan and its variants" is not denying that fact in the slightest, on the contrary, it is supporting the fact that it is the same language...but it still has variants and distinctive and officialy established ones, namely, Valencian. As for the logical inferrings you are making, I would never dare to challenge them, for you would certainly kick my ass in the logical arena ;)

But I just can't help to think that you are by-passing a single fact (that this language is official in Valencia as "Valencian", one of the admitted names for the language) by making logical sequiturs to lead you to the desired result, which is that of "yes, it has different names, ok, but let's just call it Catalan". And that is regardless the fact that virtually no one calls it like that in Valencia (which it's not a land populated by large amounts of scholars and philology professors, nor the AVL guys could fill a small sized stadium), the fact that everybody (even most of scholars and professors...by the way) call it Valencian, the fact that it is recognized officialy as Valencian and, last but not least, lots of people feel offended (or simply they think they are not being referred to) when we call Catalan what is officialy, historicaly (and recieved wisdom) Valencian. This tweaks to make very clear that Valencian is Catalan show insecurities on the one side and, on the other, provokes anon wikivandalism and bad karma. And we dont want either. You know I do respect and trust your editting, but, in this case, take my word if I say that I think you could be overreacting to a mere "and its variants" line.

I would like you to look at it with a new mind and reconsider it, pleaseMOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 03:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Hey man, I think you haven't completely understood me. It is not fair to qualify my reply as an overreaction or to suggest some insecurities about the nature of the language (I do have insecurities about most topics, sure, but my everyday linguistic experience doesn't leave room for insecurities about that single issue). I am not overreacting to a "and its variants" line (notice that in fact it was "OR its variants", which makes the important logical difference I was reacting against) and I am not proposing to call the language always "Catalan". Actually, you should realize that I am on your side on this matter (remember that I accepted your proposal for the Catalan-Valencian cultural domain). My point (which is also yours) is that Valencian is no more a dialect of Catalan, than Catalan a dialect of Valencian. Both names: Català and Valencià (although in English Catalan is the most common one) should be at the same level. For instance, the following should be a completely admissible statement: "Valencian is one of the official languages in Catalonia". This said, I have to admit that now you helped me to see the light about that very wording we were discussing. It is very easy after all: instead of "the entire political entities in which Catalan or its variants have some official status" just write "the entire political entities in which Catalan (under some of its two alternative names) has some official status". I think that is much more accurate and it is exactly what we both mean, right? -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 10:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not insecure at all and I'm quite happy to declare that we should always call it Catalan. Why? because that is it's only name in English. whatever people call their language, it's English usage which should rule - which does not mean we should accept any idea or word most people say as correct (many people say it's Valencian, so.., many people say the world is flat., so...). Many years ago, I learnt the hard way that using over-correction is useless. Whenever I used "Castilian" i was met with confusion, until I gave up and used a 100% synonym: Spanish. It's the most uncomfortable fact, but Valencian is a word in English with quite different meanings than in Spanish and Catalan: A Valencian person, as an adjective, and in scientific circles as one othe Southern dialects of Catalan. I don't think you would forgive me using a Ctalan word out of context or abusing it's usage - how may people say Catalan is Spanish every day? Well, in my experience, a lot. Podria comparar-ho amb "escòcia (com el nord d'anglaterra és anomenada en anglès)". Doncs, no, Escòcia no és pas Anglaterra, però tots els dies algú ho diu i jo respecte aquesta llengua inclús quan simplifica massa, com ací. I sí, dic anglaterra quan vull dir Regne Unit. In summary, we should use not just a 100% synonym, but the only common name for the language in English. The rest is just politics - it's a shame languages are so 'impermeable. It means all translations are uncomfortable and slightly loose. Therefore I can forgive using a common word in a slighlty vague sense, but to use a highly unusual and therefore confusing word in a very accurate way (and even then, the valencian dialect is not spoken throughout Valencia)...that's no help for me. -- Espencat ( talk) 23:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I think it should be copied into the Talk:Valencian Community and go on discussing it there. Right?. -- Joanot Martorell ✉ 09:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Carles. I replied your latest message at my talk page, as I usually keep the conversation where it started. Bona nit. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 00:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.125.16.163 ( talk • contribs)

Dear anon aggressive user, I have already proven in your discussion page that I undid a non explained deletion of content as you can see here. So I am not adding any personal analysis on anything, just recovering information that was already there. I invite you to calm down, take a look at WP:Civil and then come back for a reasonable discussion if you feel like. Cheers. -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 16:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear Cnoguera - I had forgotten about that discussion! If you wish to restore the previous icon, feel free to do so. I only changed the image in an attempt to stop Satesclop from - to put it bluntly - being a pest. Be warned, though - he seems to have no idea of what the terms "discussion" and "consensus" mean, so he may well restore the current icon (at least he's less likely to call you an "ignoramus who knows nothing about Spain" as he did to me!) Grutness... wha? 23:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Noguera, even though I have no right to ask you (I dont know if I'd took a similarly poisoned offer from you) I'd like you to pay a look and comment my post at Catalan people. Maybe we can shed some light in there. Maybe not.

You must know the Sysyphus myth. And the Prometeus one. Choose your card....oh, too late, I just chose Sysyphus first ;) MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 02:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, unfortunately Sisyphus is the exact myth to describe our work here. We are "cursed to roll a huge boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, and to repeat this throughout wikieternity". But from time to time we should at least try to give some of our eternal light to poor mortals, as Prometheus did (note to third readers: this is obviously a sarcastic non-pedantic joke). Well, this particular controversy on Catalan people is something I honestly couldn't find the time and energy to devote to. Luckily the arrival of Coentor made me think that my point of view was already more or less represented in the discussion by a reasonable well-informed polite user, so I was more than happy to step back and watch it from a security distance, as you did. Now, when Maurice has been unfortunately blocked although he was really trying to solve the problem, you are right that it may be our time to help settling it down. Give me just some time to figure out how and I'll make my move. -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 08:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I am glad that you also seem think that Maurice was rather unfairly blocked, if only this time ;) Really, I dont know what is going on with some admins these days. Some have the ability to show tolerance for trolls and intolerance for passionate talk. Or they just look at your block record and act accordingly. I don't know what is worse. I wasnt following the discussion that close so far, but, for what I have seen, it doesnt look like Maurice deserved to be blocked; and it is bad news that he gets blocked when he is acting ok, because if he is going to be blocked anyway, I am afraid that good Maurice will let the demons loose next time from the very beginning :D

. Anyway...this has just started...again. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 13:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, I also think it was unfair. He made a mistake when replying in a too aggressive way to the anonymous vandal (he was even trying to guess who he was, which we really cannot tell, only a checkuser could) and the admin wrongly concluded that he was the troublemaker. But I am quite optimistic thinking that now we are all able to find a good everlasting solution as we have done previously in other delicate entries. Hem de tenir fe, company! -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 14:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Mira ya estas empezando a molestarme con el articulo del Clasico. El Real Madrid no respresenta ninguna idea "centralista", es una sociedad deportiva de futbol y baloncesto. Y segundo. La ciudad de Madrid no "es la capital del patrotismo". No se pueeden poner esas chorradas en un articulo de la wikipedia, ya que atentan contra el obejtivo fundamental de esta enciclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cid Campeador ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, Cid. Thanks for your remarks. I have replied in the talk page of the corresponding article. Cheers! -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 09:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Mira amigo se que es difícil que congeniemos. Tu defiendes que existen los Paises Catalanes y yo defiendo que no. Tu quieres que esos territorios se separen de España y yo no. Yo soy del Madrid y tu del Barça. Bueno, no se si sabes que me bloquearon y por eso estuve un tiempo sin editar el artículo. El caso es que he vuelto. Y estoy dispuesto a reanudar la guerra de ediciones si no se escucha lo que digo. Por lo que he visto, no has tenido el CORAJE durante mi ausencia de discutir lo más minimo por el artículo. Eso dice mucho de tí, amigo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cid Campeador3 ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, again! I should reply in English as advised by talk pages policies. So you say I didn't have the "courage to discuss" on El Clásico talk page and that "this tells a lot about me". Well, it has nothing to do with courage, it is because my lack of interest in the topic and it tells of lot about me.... yes, it tells that I am not much interested in football, as I already told you long ago. I just saw you were not respecting the rules by erasing referenced stuff without discussion and I warned you that this was incorrect and that you should prove what was wrong with those references. As for the rest, I could not contribute much in the discussion because I am by no means an expert in football, so I was hoping that more informed people would arrive to discuss with you. I am very sorry to tell you that I cannot provide much help on this particular topic. Maybe we can contribute together in some other articles. Cheers! -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 18:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

And, just for the record, when have I written in Wikipedia that I wish for the separation of Catalan Countries w.r.t. Spain? In fact, my ideals are substantially different from that (I am much more for unification of all countries in the world, than for separation), but our political views do not matter much here, just our will to contribute as neutrally as possible, right? -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 18:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Noguera, the Valencian community wasn't (yes in that you're right); but the Kingdom of Valencia in fact yes existed, this coat of arms logically was added to the lotja at finalize its construction or after, the Llotja de la Seda (or "Lonja de la Seda" as was know since its construction until 30 years ago) was built between 1482 and 1548, in that momment the kingdom of Valencia was inside of Spain, that coat of arms was added after....
just for curiosity, the capital of the crown of Aragon was Zaragoza, right? and its official language (in all crown) was the aragonese; and castilian in last centuries of that crown before the union, dont? -- Venerock ( talk) 21:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Venerock. Thanks a lot. I see you have accepted my point and changed it now to "Kingdom of Valencia", which is fine (although "Arms of Aragon" was already correct). About your side notes, unrelated to this particular issue we have just solved, I think we cannot apply, not at least in a too straightforward way, the modern categories of "capital" and "official language" to ancient countries such as the Crown of Aragon. They usually didn't issue official legal statements establishing these things. When it comes to capital, we can arguably say that it was the political center of the country, the city that hosted the king and his court, which changed from one king to another (Zaragoza, Barcelona, Valencia, ...). As regards to official language, there wasn't such a thing either; we could maybe take it as the language in which documents were written in the court and institutions (mostly Latin, but also romance languages native to the territories of the crown and to the king). -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 22:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

So the coat is ok like that, if you are right.... About my 'side notes', thanks but you dont solve my doubt, i am not convince at all, i think that we need read more about that and Dont leave us guide by it teach us in the school of our autonomous community. but thanks for try. Saludos! (i mean "cheers" in my beautiful castillian language) -- Venerock ( talk) 22:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure to completely understand what you are trying to imply about my personal education (which you cannot possibly know about I guess). Nevertheless, if you can provide any sources about capital and official language of the Crown of Aragon, I'll be happy to learn more about it. Those I know so far seem make me conclude what I've stated above. Gracias y saludos! -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 22:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Your reply in Valencian is more neutral for me, and sorry for my bad literal spelling by my castilian native language, i will better my english. Saludos -- Venerock ( talk) 22:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh, nevermind! That's why wikipedia is designed as a collaborative effort: to help one another ;)-- Carles Noguera ( talk) 22:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks my friend, and please we should expand the love in Spain, not the hate; the past is past, btw the castilian hate so much at that galician franco (i think more than you)-- Venerock ( talk) 22:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, sure, in Spain and everywhere! (you are talking to a convinced self-declared internationalist ;)) -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 22:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Carles. I didn't reply sooner because I couldn't figure out how to. Anyway, hope I am replying properly now. My web site (GaySitges.com) is not primarily for advertising but for info on Sitges, hence its something like 2,000 pages (if you dig deep). I have Google AdSense and Booking.com as my source of income because without it I simply couldn't spend all my time running my guides. I have put a great deal of effort into GaySitges.com - far more than it pays off, because it is as much my hobby as it is my source of income. Dunno what else to tell you. This is a hobby that just happened to make me enough money to live on. Rich I ain't, but happy with what I got I am :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.115.98 ( talk) 21:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi there Carles Noguera. I've reverted your recent change. If you wish, please discuss the topic here.-- Karljoos ( talk) 13:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi there Carles. Long time no see.

I wanted to make you reconsider your position about keeping the european centered maps. For almost one year(?), you have been defending those maps against (quite a lot now) changes by multiple editors to the one used in the rest of CCAA related articles. We already discussed this matter long time ago (uniformity in wikipedia articles, the country being more important than the continent...).

You know I don't agree with your position, but for the sake of both of us I left your option. But now, you should admit that your opinion is probably a minority.

Tell me what you think. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII ( Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 10:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Maurice! Nice to meet you here again. Hope you're doing fine.

I don't completely agree with your analysis of the situation. First, those maps are not my invention. They were already in stable versions of the entries when I joined the project, more than two years ago. Second, after a quick check on the history of the entry on Catalonia, I've counted only four users changing the map to the Spanish-centered one since we discussed the issue. And none of them, unlike you, has bothered to write a single line on the talk page to state their points for the change. On the other hand, there has been one user who has proposed a Catalan-centered map which, coherently with my globally-minded approach, I don't like and I don't support. Therefore, I don't think that "lonely Carles fighting against a majority of users who argue for a Spain-centered map" is a faithful account of the situation, because they are few, they hardly argue, and there have even been proposals in a different direction. In the interesting discussion we had, back in those days, we made our positions quite clear. Let me remind my points:

• The main thing here is to offer an accurate map (faithful to both geographical and political reality) and as informative as possible to help readers from all over the world to locate these regions.
• In particular, the maps should clearly show the administrative borders of the autonomous communities, their position inside Spain (for they belong to this sovereign state, and nowadays sovereign states are the key element in geopolitical divisions), and their position in a wider context to give the maximum information to non-European readers. All of this can be achieved with the pictures I've been defending.
• Homogeneity with entries about other regions is certainly a good value to pursue and, as I already showed in the aforementioned old discussion, it does not contradict any point above, because we already have in Commons maps of this kind (showing both Spanish and European context) for all the remaining Spanish regions.

-- Carles Noguera ( talk) 11:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC) reply

For the interest of this discussion, if you don't mind, I'll move these comments to the right place. -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 14:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC) reply

ok, let's wait if somebody else answers... someday... ;) --MauritiusXXVII ( Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 18:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Pots parlar-me perfectament en castellà o en català. Diplomatiko ( talk) 14:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC) reply

Moltes gràcies! :). Lo que pasa es que si no escribimos en inglés nos van a llamar la atención por violar la política de páginas de discusión... -- Carles Noguera ( talk) 14:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I've seen on your userpage that you speak Catalan: From March 16 to April 15 we will be organising the Catalan Culture Challenge, a Wikipedia editing contest in which victory will go to those who start and improve the greatest number of articles about 50 key figures of Catalan culture. You can take part by creating or expanding articles on these people in your native language (or any other one you speak). We look forward to seeing you! Amical Wikimedia-- Kippelboy ( talk) 08:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC) reply

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) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply