User talk:Xtv

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 00:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Xtv, could you explain why are you reverting my changes? What is wrong in showing differences between Catalan and Spanish?--Xchip 20:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catalonia Request

Please, could you check this? Thanks --Owdki ^talk 16:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial changes

I don't think it was a controversial change, but a logical change. Catalonia is part of Spain so the flag of Spain must appear in the template. Same in others Spanish regionals templates. A english spokesman understand better Catalan Government than Generalitat de Catalunya. --Kurrop 21:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A rule? Can you say me where that rule is written?--Kurrop 22:01, 24

September 2007 (UTC)

You give me the definition of the word rule, not a wikipedian rule that obligate to put only the regional flag...User:Kurrop 22:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a rule is not written that rule doesn't exists... Wikipedia is not static and it can change. I'm sure that if I put the flag in any other template there wouldn't be any problem... --Kurrop 22:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An anarchy put the national flag of the country in the locality stub? I don't think that. No rules prohibe me to modify that stub. Or two flag or no one. With one flag there can be confusion to the reader. --Kurrop 22:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. -- Merope 14:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find complitely astonishing that you advise me about the three revert rule because I reverted controversial actions made without any explanation in articles' talk pages. The subject is enough controversial -as you can see in the recently closed arbitration- so that any contribution which is likely to be polemical should be discussed first in the talk page. Moreover if some of the contributions made by this user are complitely non-sense. I want to remark I was not the only user reverting the contributions from Kurrop but there was at least two other users reverting his/her contributions. (S)he was pushing for his/her versions without discussing and I asked him/her to discuss first and since (s)he didn't, I came to the administrators noticeboard to ask you to tell him/her exactly to discuss first the changes in the talk page. And then you come and you leave me a message asking me to use the talk page. Is it a joke?

Anyway, I won't revert anymore any of his/her contributions, but in that case I beg you to look carefuly his/her contributions so that only well discussed changes may be accepted. Thank you very much.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you the standard warning issued to editors involved in an edit dispute. You both reverted the article three times; you both get the warning. "I'm right and s/he's wrong" isn't an exception to 3RR. You might want to add the link to the arbitration decision on the affected pages -- I saw nothing in the article's talk pages that demonstrated consensus one way or the other. I will, of course, continue to monitor the other editor's contributions. -- Merope 17:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I'm right and (s)he is wrong. I just said that before making this changes (s)he had to discuss it in the talk pages and (s)he didn't. I wrote him/her personally because his/her changes were affecting many articles, and you can see which were his/her answers: "No rules prohibe me to modify that stub. Or two flag or no one", when there are already hundreds of stubs with one flag. Anyway, perhaps I should have seated and see how (s)he changes some dozens of articles while I tell him/her that this is not correct and nothing else happens, could be. Next time I will do it and I won't revert him/her, but I think that's pretty unfair.

Btw, as I told, the arbitration is already closed.

Finally, another user is attaking this pages, this time clearly with vandalism: Special:Contributions/84.120.66.85. Could you look it up, please?--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left the user a warning; we can't really block a user until warnings have been issued. I've left an additional message on the other editor's page regarding his/her contentious edits. -- Merope 18:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barcelona.

Sorry, it was move protected, and I got confused. I've now semi-protected for three weeks. If you need any more help, just ask. · AndonicO ^Talk 11:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

It's seems fine to me. Last time you only took care of getting me banned. Let's see how you act this time.--Maurice27 08:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catalonia national football team

In a regional football team, is important to know who of those guys are of that region, and the official nacionaties of the players, in that case for the neutral point of view, you must use the regions of the other to aditional information, to know the regional places of the others. In the other case, is an international football team of the spanish league, only the official nacionalities are important, the unofficial nacionalities or the politics-points are not important, if somebody wabt to know the born-place of the players, they have their owns articles.--Codorado (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

are you sure?

Xtv, I try to stay out of all this shitty wars and so I don't have nor want to have an opinion on Casa's block (I didn't know he was blocked, by the way...I guess by my surprise you can tell my position on the matter).

But, in any case, I think saying that "Phsychim62 shares POV with Maurice27" as you did in your inofficial complaint is, to say the least, way too bold, too good to be true. You should have seen them arguing in the past fiercely and Maurice getting blocked by Physchim as well (actually...I think you have seen them! ;).

Besides, believe it or not, they don't share the same POV. Physchim tends to be erratic and can surprise you when you least expect him. Maurice (such as myself, as yourself and so on) is more easily predictable. All in all, I don't think this is so simple as to say "they share the same POV, result: Maurice didn't get blocked".

In any case, regardless any consideration on whether he was right or wrong with this particular block, I think Physchim deserves that you put that claim you are making in some other way, because, as it is, it's quite unfair, or so I think.

All the best. Mountolive | Talk 00:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just curious...Casa is still blocked? ~~Maurice is blocked as well?~~ are you blocked? I am not, for the moment... ;) • Mountolive ^{J'espère que tu t'es lavé les mains avant de me toucher} 20:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memorandum of understanding

Hi, I invite you to read this and participate if willing. Cheers, --Maurice27 21:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Showing proper respect

Because in the current situation your abstention in Physchim62 votation is a noble act, Xtv. Regards --Owdki ^talk 03:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garrigues

I am currently proposing that the Garrigues page should be replaced by the content now found on the Garrigues (disambiguation) page and the the material presently on the Garrigues page should be moved to a new page to be titled Les Garrigues, Catalonia If you have the time I would appreciate your comments on the Discussion page at Garrigues. I hope you will agree. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Espla (Mystery Play)

Thank you. I tought that looked wrong. Pustelnik (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

It would be my honor if you nominate me. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, really thanks for nominating me! I would like to be one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to thank you for supporting my request for adminship. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Nadal

You got a Christmas card! → → →

♪ ♫ I wish you the merriest, ♫ the merriest, the merriest, ♪ the merriest to you... ♪♫ I wish you the happiest, the happiest... the happiest, yes the happiest. ♫♪... Bon Nadal i Bon Any ...

♪ I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Cheers. --Owdki ^talk 00:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moltíssimes gràcies, Xtv. XD XD XD =P

Oita, i que no faltin les discussions encara que siguin sobre "tortugues ratllades de les Pitiüses". Hom diu que, si encara borden els gossos, senyal que son vius. Best wishes for the 2008! Peace, love and saluuuut! --Owdki ^talk 23:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a message

Hola. Tinc un missatge a User talk:Vriullop#"Friends" against "friends" (errr... "friend") que va per tu. --Vriullop (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring in Catalonia

So so typical on your part! You accuse me instead than the anon.... If only you could remember what your wikiproject agreed in the past... Poor opportunist. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 18:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About our wikiproject

Hi Xtv!

I would like to draw your attention to the discussion in [1] and have your opinion about it. You are one of the most valuable contributors to the project, so you surely will have something to say about this proposal of having a fresh new start. Una abraçada! --Carles Noguera (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surveys at Talk:Valencian Community

Hi! I'm addressing you because you had participated in some way at Valencian Community article. I've started several surveys regarding to naming conventions about the Catalan language, the Spanish language, and about the name of the country of Valencia. I think there's no a real consensus about that and (also because of it) it may help to stop endless polemic disputes. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 17:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP warning

BLP applies to AfD discussions also--see my comment at [2]. I am going to assume it is an honest mistake, but you should be more careful. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off-Wiki canvassing re you-know-who?

[I originally posted this to http://ca.wiki.x.io/wiki/Usuari_Discussi%C3%B3:Xtv which I guess is your Talk on the ca wiki, though I have no idea how I wandered over there. Now repostong here...]

I think the CU is probably right about the latest SPI -- these newest accounts aren't socks, but meat (I think this sock-meat terminology is dumb, but it's the way these things are discussed, I guess). I was thinking, since you're fluent, maybe you can google to find if there's a discussion group or whatever which is encouraging this behavior. Be careful though in reporting what you find -- revealing the personal identity of other users is a big no-no, even if they're puppets and so on. Best to just post a link to whatever you find. EEng (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Catalan/Valencian-speaking territories

Template:Catalan/Valencian-speaking territories has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lfdder (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Xtv. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Portal:Catalan-speaking countries

Portal:Catalan-speaking countries, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Catalan-speaking countries and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Catalan-speaking countries during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]