User talk:Eva Grossjean

Sumsum2010 · &#32; Talk  · &#32; Contributions  23:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Catalonia. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * My dear anonymous 69.181.249.92,


 * Will you please substantiate your points? If somebody can't read standard English and understand what does "to sanction" mean, then that somebody shouldn't be writting on the English Wikipedia. That does not amount to attacking anybody: it's plain common sense. And common sense sometimes hurts.


 * The Catalonia article has suffered from virtual hijacking (for instance, not mentioning Catalonia's Parliament on Catalonia's infobox, which I suspect is down to a 'neutral' Spanish-nationalistic POV) from a coterie of contributors without anybody lying even a finger on them.


 * With regards to our Floridian friend of halfcast Catalan/Cuban background, he himself got into hot water when mentioning it as a warrant for his opinions on Catalonia. I'm still laughing.


 * Every bit as important as keeping civility, is to keep high standards. Too much mediocrity is hidden behind false civility.


 * Eva Grossjean (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Too many personal attacks are hidden behind "common sense." As the above warning states, Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry dude, but every time I'll come accross with an English WP contributor who can't understand plain, standard English I will point out at his/her unfitness for the task. One of the main problems for WP's reputation is, precisely, that too many people not understanding a iota of anything are vomiting their ignorance along, shielded as they are by anonimity.


 * And those who defend this sort of people are most likely cohabiting their very same intellectual pigstay.


 * xxx
 * Eva Grossjean (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And if you do that, you will be blocked. WP:CIVIL is very important to Wikipedia, and contributors should not be uncivilly criticized if their English is imperfect. An editor who can add valuable content but whose work needs subsequent copy-editing is still a great asset, but an editor who is scared away by you being rude to them will contribute nothing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. One more comment like the above and you're going to be reported for repeated, unrepentant personal attacks. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Catalonia has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Please stop using uncivil edit summaries Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding fitness to edit here
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The standards for fitness to be found here. Good English just is not a standard here. Belittling people because of their different skills with English is uncivil, and civility is a standard for fitness. (In the grand scheme of things, most people don't or didn't speak English, so it's downright illogical to determine intelligence or knowledge solely off of the ability to speak English, anyway). It is not necessary to be uncivil to maintain high standards, nothing in WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:VAN, WP:FRINGE, or any of the other guidelines justifies being uncivil (in fact, WP:DENY insists that you remain civil even when someone deserves it). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Catalonia, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Also, see WP:CITE. This edit removed cited information and added uncited information. The standard here isn't any sort of "truth," but verifiability, which means cited information is going to stay unless there is more cited information demonstrating otherwise. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: Talk:Catalonia. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Seriously, we do not take uncivil editors here. Implying someone is "intellectually lazy" because they are from Spain is nothing but bigotted, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Mon cher ami Ian, I didn't call anybody "intellectualy lazy" because he was from Spain. I called him "intellectualy lazy" because he was "intellectualy lazy". Then, he happened to be from Spain, which is mere happestance. He could've been from Kenia, Chile or Japan.


 * But now that you raise it: it is true, however, that Spanish education/history/culture breeds a great deal of intellectual laziness amongst its ordinary citizens. If you want to check it out by yourself:


 * (a) Source the output of scientifical papers published by Spanish universities every year. Spain, a country of 47m lags behind, Danemark, a country of.... 9m?
 * (b) Source the amount of patents registered each year in Spain and compare it, again, with Danemark.


 * You'll soon realise that Spain's main problem is, indeed, intellectual laziness, as can be noticed in very many contributions to the Catalonia article.


 * xxx
 * Eva Grossjean (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Scientifical?" "Danemark?"  You mean "scientific" and "Denmark"?  Start naming world famous Danish artists.  Even an introductory art appreciation class would reveal that Spain's influence exceeds or at least rivals all other countries, even Italy's.  The professor of such a class would have to go out of his or her way to mention Danish artists.  Different types of intelligence do not mean different levels of intelligence.
 * I'm an American Southerner of Scottish descent. I'm neutral, here.  Whether or not Catalonia is a country, autonomous region, mountain, island, planet, dwarf planet, whatever, I don't care.  Whether Spain is a different country, rightful government, hostile invader, autonomous region of Catalonia, whatever, I don't care.  However, having grown up in the ashes of burning crosses, I quite easily recognize and very much despise bigotry, and I see a lot of unnecessary and irrational hatred towards Spain in your work here.  If you want to be hateful, that's your problem.  But Wikipedia won't have any of that here.
 * If you want to demonstrate that Catalonia is its own nation, that Spain has a history of oppressing it, etc, I actually don't see any problem with that as long as you follow WP:CIVIL, WP:CITE, and other guidelines. If you need help with standard English, reference tags, or other issues, I'm willing to help.  Just edit without an agenda, and play nice.
 * Seriously, you're at the end of your rope here. We've been telling you that you could be blocked for incivility, and now you've gotten the attention of the admins, the folks with the power to block people from editing.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people&#32;as you did at Catalonia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. '''I strongly advise you not to label good-faith edits as Vandalism (especially when they're done by one of the founders of Wikipedia himself). Also, please cease your uncivil attitude, and leave your anti-Spanish bigotry at home when you come to Wikipedia to edit - if you continue, you will almost certainly be blocked''' Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Mon cher Boing-whatever,


 * Take it easy, frère. Now it's you who's behaving like a bigot by accusing others of bigotry. And this is, by the way, "comment on comment".


 * For too long, Spanish zealots have hijacked the Catalonia article, masquerading their byass as consesus--as a matter of fact, it was code for vandalism--and no high-minded WP editor intervened. Follow lcallbs and mauritius27 conversations and you'll soon realize what I mean.


 * (Remember: they deleted any reference to Catalonia's Parliament from Catalonia's article and kept this state of affairs for years, routinely undoing any sincere, decent editing on the matter. Where were you guys, the high-minded defenders of ethics, when all this was going on? Où?)


 * Proud to be the subject of Jimbo's editings but, since we allow in these pages people with a defficient command of English as if they were natural-born English WP editors, we're not going to start using the principle of authority with Jimmy Wales here, are we?


 * By the way, on va chez toi ou chez moi?


 * Je t'embrasse,
 * Eva Grossjean (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not the principle of authority, it's the principle of Civility that you seem to be unable to understand or unwilling to follow, and that is simply not accepted here. Please note that none of your warnings refers to the actual content of your changes (though as they are contentious, you should discuss them on the article's Talk page rather than edit-warring), but on your repeated abuse of other editors. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait... how do you marry this:


 * "and leave your anti-Spanish bigotry at home when you come to Wikipedia to edit"

with this:


 * "Please note that none of your warnings refers to the actual content of your changes"

Isn't that you're ashamed of having allowed too much Spanish bigotry in the past and, in a typical Freudian move, you resort to accuse others of anti-Spanish bigotry?

A big, warm kiss from your faithful Eva Grossjean (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never had anything to with Spain, or any Spain-related articles, in the past - I'm not from Spain, I've never been to Spain, and I don't know any Spaniards. I refer solely to the incivility and anti-Spanish bigotry that is plain from your comments above (and it is to those, plus your edit summaries, that I refer, not your article changes themselves - as I say, those are merely contentious and need to be discussed on the appropriate Talk page). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, mon cher Boing-quelque-chose,

How do you marry this...


 * "and leave your anti-Spanish bigotry at home when you come to Wikipedia to edit"

with this...


 * "Please note that none of your warnings refers to the actual content of your changes"?

It's a matter of coherence. Eva Grossjean (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I repeat, the bigotry I refer to is in your comments, not your article content - that seems clear enough to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow
Did you really just revert Jimbo, founder of Wikipedia, as a vandal?   That's... amazing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a brave lassie... Eva Grossjean (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Brave" isn't quite the word I was looking for. I hope you can see the difference now between someone who disagrees with you and a vandal. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So far, the envelope is being pushed into the right direction, darling. xxx, Eva Grossjean (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure this is the direction you want to go? You are pushing the envelope, you're right.  The ANI thread, in case you didn't understand, is trying to understand whether you're someone who is willing to learn to follow the rules: to be polite, to work together with people, even when you disagree with them, to never push your own opinions.  If you can't or won't do those things, you'll be blocked, and probably very soon.  Right now, every comment you make seems to give another reason for us to think you'll never be willing to follow the rules, another reason to give up on you and just block this account.  I don't really want to do that, because I can tell you have knowledge and enthusiasm, but all of your knowledge and enthusiasm is useless in a collaborative project if you can't get along with other people. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI Incident report
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. The specific incident report can be found at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents   Thank you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Catalonia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Catalonia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Catalunia" cannot possibly be a "nationality", any more than can "England" or "Spain" - and you're the one being abusive to other people because of their imperfect command of English! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
This account is blocked indefinitely because it has only been used for disruption, thus far: name calling, false claims of vandalism, and similar disruptive edits. If you would like to edit Wikipedia, please state with specific details what articles you'd like to edit and how you think you can improve them. Once a suitable explanation of proposed editing has been made, an administrator will consider whether to unblock the account. Jehochman Talk 12:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I cant smell your stench of Third World Catholicism, Jehochman.

This is nothing but a Rome conspiration against we Protestants.

Eva Grossjean (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no conspiracy, I'm a Protestant and I fully support this block because you've been a disruptive bigot with no apparent regard for the guidelines. Your accusation of conspiracy against us Protestants only further demonstrates that. (In English, it is us Protestants, not we Protestants, because you wouldn't end a sentence in "we" in real English). If Jehochman was Catholic it would not matter. Name calling, bigotry, replacing source information with contrary unsourced information, refusing to work towards consensus, and POV pushing are all things that Wikipedia will not tolerate.  Furthermore, you have no evidence that Jehochman is Catholic. He's from Connecticut, is not third world by any measure, and which is 40% Protestant and 28% non-Christian. Your statement about his "Third World Catholicism" is as misinformed as it is misguided. Look it your behavior, is it really appropriate for a Christian to present such hatred to their neighbors because they might worship Christ in a different manner? In the end, that is all your anti-Catholicism comes down to. And I'm not going to even ask rhetorically if you think its appropriate for someone who calls herself a Christian if hatred is justified by nationalism, because Christians belong to the kingdom of heaven before any other nation. One doesn't have to be a Christian to edit here, but don't you dare use my religion to justify your hatred and nation worship. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. No Catholicism here either - I'm a descendant of Henry VIII's split from Rome myself (though pretty neutral when it comes to RC vs CofE - and respectful of both). But I also fully support the block, because it is nothing to do with religion, nationality, or anything like that - it is purely a reaction to your repeated abuse of other editors. (As an aside, the Catalonia article does need some NPOV work done on it, but your abusive approach is not the way to go about it). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your response, Eve, doesn't indicate that you have a plan for editing different articles, or editing in a different way, so I guess you've decided not to request unblock. That's fine.  Oh, and I'm an atheist, so I don't care about your religion.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, that's just my sandals. It's time to get a new pair. Jehochman Talk 18:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruption. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.