User talk:Andreas Balart

--Andreas Balart (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Catalan vs Spanish and Wikipedia's NPOV policy
Hello Andreas Balart, since Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of perspective, removing references to "Spanish" from articles related to Catalonia (such as wine regions, which is why I spotted your edits) looks like a kind of nationalist/regionalist "point of view" which is in general not appreciated. For all well-written wine region articles, we mention the country in which it is located already in the lead. I'm fairly certain that quite a lot of English-speaking readers don't know that (most of) Catalonia is in Spain, so this is one of those things that definitely have to be spelled out. You're of course very welcome to add to and improve articles, but please leave any nationalist/regionalist/whatever sentiments out of your editing. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Catalan legislation on Catalan wines
Dear Tomas e.

First of all, thank you for your kind observations.

In my humble opinion, re-arrangement of Alella wines as purely Catalan not only does not break Wikipedia's neutral point of perspective or shows any nationalist/regionalist/whatever sentiment but scupulously respects legislation on the matter.

Wine legislation in those wine-growing areas that fall entirely in the territory of one of Spain's 17 regions or nationalities are a completely devolved matter (the [|reference at the bottom of the page]actually leads you to a Catalonia's Official Gazzette issue whereby the Alella DO is created; by an act in council of the Catalan government, no less).

I'll be more than happy to share with you more material on this matter regarding other wine-growing regions in Catalonia

Quite another matter would be, for instance, portraying the "cava" region as a purely Catalan thing, since some areas in Extremadura and Rioja also produce cava, and therefore you need to take it in a Spanish, rather than purely Catalan, perspective. That's why I would never mention cava as a "Catalan" wine, but I would only refer the fact that most of it is being produced in Catalonia in the body text, and possibly the Spanish regions and nationalities where it is being produces in the data box.

Hope this helps on your nationalist/regionalist/whatever concerns. Looking forward collaborating with you.

Take good care --AB


 * Thanks for discussing. While I'm aware that Spain lets regional authorities do the first steps in the classifications of wine regions (thus the long confusion regarding Priorat's) status, there is no doubt that the Denominación de Origen classification as such is a national Spanish classification, since it is part of the European-level classification Quality Wines Produced in Specified Regions. Similar distribution of labor occur for "wine bureaucracy" in several other European countries. and that the Alella (DO) is situated in the country of Spain. Removing the national designation and reference and putting in a regional one, as if it was a country, does not help an international English-speaking readership with sometimes vague ideas of the finer points of European geography and politics. Thus, for wine regions/appellations/something similar, it is best to have its country and its formal classification clearly stated in the lead. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Note
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently copied or moved text from into. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. AgneCheese/Wine 14:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I would suggest starting a conversation on the Talk:Sparkling wine article about why you feel a separate article on Cava is warranted. Cava is already extensively discussed in both that article as well as the Catalan wine article where, in both cases, the extra context of the main article provides additional benefit to the reader then a single isolated article would offer. Considering that there is little tangible differences in all the sparkling wines of the world, there is little sense in having separate stub articles on each one. But again, if you feel that Cava deserves some special consideration then please start a discussion on the Talk:Sparkling wine rather than edit war. AgneCheese/Wine 14:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks your your help, Ange. As you might have noticed I'm new to this, so some beginners mistakes do occurr. It won't happen again--that's for sure. On the reason behind a stand-alone cava article, I've got strong feelings about it, no less the fact that sparkling wine while inclusive it's too comprehensive by half as all the sparklings need to stay within a limited space in order to keep the article within measure. There are other points: cava (chiefly Catalan cava) has risen to some prominence in some markets to the point that in in Spain, there's been a boycott to Catalan products spearheaded by a boycott (precisely) to Catalan cava. I'm in a bit of a hurry now but I'll write at large later on.

Andreas Balart (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Banyuls AOC vs (AOC)
Hello Andreas. You moved Banyuls AOC to Banyuls (AOC). If you check around, you will find that all French AOCs which require the "AOC" part for disambiguation contains "AOC" instead of "(AOC)". There is consistency between the French AOC articles, but unfortunately not full consistency between wine appellations/regions between different countries, since the Spanish ones use "(DO)" in the name. However, lacking a global standard, it's better to have national consistency than a mixed system even within countries. If you want to make changes that would potentially affect the namings of hundreds of articles, this could mean that thousands of wikilinks have to be changed. In the long run, I hope we will achieve a common standard, but we're not there today, and it would be better to reach consensus first. Until that time, it's better to stick to have national consistency. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable, Thomas. By the way, I'm planning to start a full-length article on cava. Will take time though.
 * Andreas Balart (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To me, with some expansion Cava definitely could have merit as a stand-alone article, just as for example Sekt and Crémant. Just don't forget that while predominately Catalan, a small amount of Cava is produced in other parts of Spain as well. :-) Tomas e (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above ..
Apologies for piling on, but I thought it would be worth pointing out/emphasising a few things about recent edits to wine and other articles. I wouldn't want this to be seen as an admonishment, since I'm in no better position than anyone else to give one (I'm just an ordinary editor like you), plus it's always a good thing to have other perspectives on issues. However, I do think you're pushing some "Catalan" points a bit far here. You should also be aware that even quite trivial-seeming nationalist/regionalist issues often eventually end up at one of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes, often with unhappy consequences for those involved if administrators or ArbCom get involved, whether that's fair or not. At the end of the day content here has to follow mainstream, standard representation of things. Editors shouldn't be inserting content that attempts to rewrite any of that, however strongly they feel or however just their case may be for that. Anyway -


 * Wine Infoboxes: I note the infobox you've been adding to some of these inserts "Catalonia" into the country field. This really should be "Spain". For better or worse, Catalonia is not a recognised country; Spain - including its region of Catalonia - is.
 * The lead in Spanish Wines: you've been using the phrasing wines from "Southern Catalonia (Spain)" in the first sentence, eg here. Again a far more normal wording would be from "Catalonia, Spain" - ie going succesively from the smaller area to the larger, ending in the national state - as you'll see in all other articles about wines, eg here and towns, eg here etc. Reliable sources usually also refer simply to Catalonia, rather than Southern Catalonia when talking about the region in Spain. And only adding Spain in brackets after that seems to be downplaying the point a little, and again is not usual.
 * French wines: a similar point arises, eg here, with the "Northern Catalonia" terminology seemingly outweighing the references to France. Northern Catalonia is a rarely used phrase in wider circles and would need to be qualified in some way; beyond that most wine consumers in the English-speaking world would always take Banyuls to be a French wine before they thought of it as anything else.
 * Inner Catalan border: this phrase seems to be an invention of some sort. Google searches - not definitive, but a good starting point - reveal no use of it outside of the WP article you created. That would be a big clue that the page fails WP rules on original research and naming conventions. Now I'm sure that there is some way that the division is referred to in reliable and authoritative sources, but you'd need to find them and build - and name - any page based on them.
 * La Marenda: you moved this page to this title from Cote Vermeille. This one is less clear, but again a quick Google search would suggest that the previous name is used far more commonly in English language sources to describe the area. I am not clear about other similar moves you have made, but I suspect they would be better discussed rather than being made the subject of unilateral moves.

Anyway, apologies for the essay, but it's probably better to not immediately leap into making extensive changes to a large number of pages immediately after opening an account. Otherwise you'll end up just having many of your changes reverted, and potentially ending up in disputes that end with blocks and bans. Although, having said that, I assume you have been editing here for a while before opening this account? --Nickhh (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I notice since I posted the above that you've started moving a large number of articles. Even if you are correct - and I suspect that you are not - that the Catalan name for towns etc in the region is the more common in English, you should still be discussing this sort of thing and asking for input from others. Your failure to do so suggests that you are on something of a nationalist mission. I have no interest in getting heavy on this, but I or someone else will no doubt shortly take this to a noticeboard here if you don't stop, and self-revert all your changes. At the end of the day you're only wasting a lot of people's time - your own included, since someone will get round eventually to undoing pretty much most of everything you've done here. And it is as likely as not that your account will end up blocked for disruption if you don't take a step back. It's your choice really. --Nickhh (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

English wikipedia, not Catalan
I reverted several of your moves and edits. This is English wikipedia, which uses the names most used in English. If that's the Catalan name, we use the Catalan name. If the French or Spanish name is the most used, we use that. The most surprising move I saw was Ibiza to Eivissa. Show me one English encyclopedia that uses the Catalan name for this island. Please don't continue this kind of moves, and read Naming conventions (geographic names). Markussep Talk 17:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * With respect to the Canigou, the comparison with the UK, Scotland etc. doesn't fit, since there isn't another Scotland somewhere. I think the comparison with Northern Ireland is a bit more appropriate, even though regions like Languedoc-Roussillon or Pyrénées-Orientales don't enjoy the same degree of autonomy as Northern Ireland or (Spanish) Catalonia. In the infobox for Slieve Donard, the highest hill in Northern Ireland, its location is gives as County Down, Northern Ireland. Most English speakers think of Catalonia as the autonomous region around Barcelona, stating that Canigou is in Catalonia would be confusing. Markussep Talk 17:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * the comparison with the UK, Scotland etc. doesn't fit, since there isn't another Scotland somewhere


 * God Almighty! And how many Catalonias you see around? What a response, for God's sake! Hope you didn't suffer any headstroke after writing such a platitude.


 * I think the comparison with Northern Ireland is a bit more appropriate


 * OK. Then, if Northern Ireland is listed as a "country", Catalonia should be listed as... (please, be so kind so as to complete the sentence)


 * even though regions like Languedoc-Roussillon or Pyrénées-Orientales don't enjoy the same degree of autonomy as Northern Ireland or (Spanish) Catalonia.


 * This is not about politics, but geographical location. "Degree of autonomy" does not make peaks any less or any more "peaky".


 * In the infobox for Slieve Donard, the highest hill in Northern Ireland, its location is gives as County Down, Northern Ireland.


 * Then, brother, you've gone beyond my points: if Slieve Donard is located in County Down, Northern Ireland, and not in County Down, United Kingdom, which is the sort of you taxonomy you seem to favour, Canigó should be located in County Vallespir, Northern Catalonia.


 * But then I don't want to go as far as you're going. I'm actually settling for Northern Catalonia, France


 * Doesn't take a genius to get it. It's a compromise, you see?


 * Most English speakers think of Catalonia as the autonomous region around Barcelona, stating that Canigou is in Catalonia would be confusing


 * Alas, that's the reason why people read enciclopaedias, brother—to widen their knowledge. Just portraying a set of idées reçues doesn't fit into the Wikipedia's spirit. If readers come to the Canigó's entry with the pressumption that it is a French mountain and leave it with the information that, on top of being French it is also Catalan, then the experience will have been worth its while.


 * Since you didn't substantiate your points, I revert Canigó's location as in Nothern Catalonia, France.


 * Andreas Balart (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Andreas, don't you realise how extremely biased you come across when you moved Ibiza to Eivissa in this English-language Wikipedia? While the wine designations I objected to above are obscure to a wider audience, Ibiza's Spanish and internationally accepted name is very widely known. You have also made helpful additions, so I don't want to scare you away, but you seriously need to rethink the way you approach Wikipedia, or you will run into trouble. Please help improve the description of subjects you consider Catalan and interesting within the generally accepted terminology and framework instead of trying use push a certain view across. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Andreas, if this is the only way you can discuss, I'm not going to reply anymore. Please be WP:CIVIL. Markussep Talk 21:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alex Cruz de Llano
A tag has been placed on Alex Cruz de Llano requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done) 22:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Inner Catalan border
Apologies, but I've also listed this page for deletion (via a more formal process than the speedy deletion noted above, since there's more content to this page, and it's been here longer). I meant to do it a while ago, but kind of let it slip. You can comment here. --Nickhh (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Alex Cruz de Llano
A tag has been placed on Alex Cruz de Llano requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Vueling
Hi! In regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vueling_Airlines&diff=next&oldid=335981840

Andreas, when you see the address, that does not mean that the HQ is in the City of Barcelona. That's referring to Barcelona Province. The HQ is in El Prat de Llobregat. We must state exactly the city of the HQ. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI Thread comment
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jusdafax  22:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Note: The thread is titled 'User:Eva Grossjean'. Jusdafax  23:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Andreas Balart for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. —  Jeff G. ツ  11:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)