User talk:Maurice27/Archive Dec 2007

Melt the clouds of sin and sadness, drive the dark of doubt away!


has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Marlith  T / C  03:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Phocea.jpg
An image that you uploaded, Image:Phocea.jpg, has been listed at because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Lupo (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Porta aviones Pp. Asturias.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Porta aviones Pp. Asturias.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR
I let you know you were reported because breaking (once again) the 3RR.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 14:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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. If you revert again, you will be blocked.  Lara  ❤  Love  15:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I inform you I don't agree at all that you are not blocked and Casaforra has been blocked during one week for acting in a symilar way as you did. Therefore, I oppened a complaint about it.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 23:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I really believe you have some kind of obsession against me! Anyway, if Casaforra acted like me, why didn't you also report him for breaking the 3RR in first place? Is that your neutrality? Your acting towards me is becoming dangerous. You keep reporting... complaining... And I haven't edited for almost 3 days! It is up to you buddy... --Maurice27 08:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, he acted symilar, not "as" you. You broke 3RR, he didn't. You have been already blocked because 3RR, he was not even warned. He respected the status quo when you introduced first time the template, you didn't when the template was removed after 17 days without any answer from you (and you were contributing with other articles). So, sincerely, in my POV you should have been blocked for one week and Casaforra should have been just warned (as one admin said) or even blocked for just 24 hours (therefore I just reported you (how can I report a user who has not broken 3RR?)). 1 week for him against 3 minutes to you I consider it is simply an offense.
 * And let me tell you something, I wouldn't have any interest you to be blocked if you were more polite and you defended your arguments in a non-offensive way as for example Mountoulive does (I never reported him even if his POV is also far from mine: it's not a matter of content, but of respect). The day you start speaking instead of insulting, I will not care at all if you are blocked or not. Now it is not possible. And sorry if I don't continue this (or any other symilar) discussion here, but I think it is not fair I loose my time discussing precisely with you.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 10:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Casaforra did not break the 3RR? Are you kiding us?


 * 1st revert: 00:00, 28 November 2007
 * 2nd revert: 00:38, 28 November 2007
 * 3rd revert: 16:31, 28 November 2007
 * 4th revert: 16:35, 29 November 2007

About your complain... here are the admins' opinions:
 * "this edit warring block does look appropriate" - Natalie
 * "I will say off the hand that edit warring to prevent a maintenance tag from being on article is a worse sin than edit warring to put it on, at least in my eyes. Edit warring to take a tag off is attempting to skip the discuss and fix steps." - GRBerry
 * "I also note that "Admin X is biased in matter Y" is a standard, usually invalid, complaint made by partisans when someone on their side gets sanctioned." - GRBerry

If you "wouldn't have any interest me to be blocked if I was more polite and I defended my arguments", why didn't you then reported Casaforra for breaking 3RR? Quite weird really...

I just did what rules tell us to do: "The process is tag - then discuss - then fix - then remove tag" - GRBerry

What Casaforra did is: tag - then remove tag - then remove tag - then remove tag- then discuss - then remove tag. He did that word by word! I didn't see him fixing...

So, it is obvious that his acting was much, much worst than mine. I excerced my right to add a tag to an article and Casaforra just ignored my right by reverting me, negliging wikipedia rules. So don't you dare accusing me we acted "similar".

Not happy with reporting me, you are now even asking to get me blocked one week?
 * "If Casaforra is not unblocked, Maurice27 should be blocked for at least the same time as Casaforra. If Casaforra is unblocked, Maurice27 should be blocked at least the same time as Casaforra has been blocked."Xtv

You really got to believe we are all stupid or something. Physchim62 didn't block him for 3RR, but for flagrantly breaking wikipedia rules as explained to Casaforra in his talk-page: "Your edit warring is more serious than that of Maurice, as you were removing the maintenance template which Maurice was trying to place on the article, hence restricting the possibility of discussion. You have been told by ArbCom to play by the rules when editing Catalonia related articles, you have seen what happens if you don't." Physchim62

Your obscure (all of you, Dunadan and Casaforra included) intentions are becoming clear. You got me blocked and banned because I opposed your biasing in wikipedia and now you are attacking Physchim62 with your complain because he opposes also your biasing and teaming. May this be seen as proof of my words: "I guess this is not the place to discuss the nuances of the discussion and the appropriateness of the tag, but rather the inappropriate administrative actions of Physchim62" - the D  únadan

Your team does not care at all about the neutrality of the articles. You just care about your POV and bias to remain pristine from other points of view (if they are not pan-catalanist, of course).

You all 3 fullfil your mouths with the word "consensus"... And you are all 3 unable to reach a single one.

Did Physchim62 acted correctly? I don't know the procedures for an admin to act. But Casaforra really deserved a block for not following the rules and for censoring my rights and beliefs in editing Catalan Countries. --Maurice27 11:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but strictily, Casaforra did not break 3RR. I invite you to read the rules.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have actually invited you, Owdki and Mountolive to discuss with references, not with opinions and accusations. We didn't get you banned because you opposed our "biasing" [sic]. You got yourself banned for violating several Wikipedia rules. We simply pointed them out. Mountolive also disagrees with us, but he has never been banned. His attitude has always been constructive. It think, based on your previous comments on how "xenophobic" we all are, that you must review your own intentions and your own biases. Please bring a positive attitude, a willingness to compromise and reputable references to the discussion. We would be more than happy to work with you in that way. Cheers! -- the D únadan  15:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Patrulla principe asturias.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Patrulla principe asturias.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:MalteseFalcon.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MalteseFalcon.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Yo! what a cool user page you worked out, man! I hope you just dont go ruining it by getting banned, all the effort for nuttin' :P Here's something including some interesting reflections which may be of your interest... • Mountolive   J'espère que tu t'es lavé les mains avant de me toucher 02:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * hey Mo! mhh...I think those issues you mention at Països Catalans are relatively easy to mend. Let's try to work them out satisfactorily. You can always tag it again if you still felt dissatisfied, but I think we can work it out something fair, in the meantime, let's just all give it a chance... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 01:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Joyeux Navidad
  You got a Christmas card! → → →