User talk:Sonrisas1

Supremacism
I asked for a basic source on the title on the article because the whole article seems Original research. That's why I asked for a basic source where the term "Catalan supremacism" is used, otherwise, I'd add the template "No original research" to the article. I've done a quick research myself via Google Scholar and all I could find it was one an only mention here, where is not even a theory of an author, but a sentence in a telegram between to persons. That's why I invite you to document the whole title of the article, adding sources where the term "Catalan supremacism" is being used in research or proper history papers. Thanks--ÀlexHinojo (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ÀlexHinojo This is a technical/policy issue we need to seek advice on. I don't know the answer, since I am a relatively new user. I asked for an RfC on the matter, let's hope non-politicized people answer and focus on technical question. Why did I call it Catalan supremacism? I don't want to call the article "Racism in Catalan nationalism" which would resolve all of these issue. It would be way more polemic even though it would resolve these issues. Sonrisas1 (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that it would be more polemic, I think that would actually be a good title. I linked your page to the Catalan nationalism page to bring in more editors and a diversity of views. Be careful with weasel words, too, assertions like "Others argue that...", "has been argued by numerous intellectuals and other public figures that...", "shared by many intellectuals"...Brinerustle (talk) 05:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Catalan supremacism. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Catalan supremacism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Catalan supremacism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Catalan supremacism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Icewhiz (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I did try and give you fair warning that the article was potentially inflammatory and that the title was poorly chosen. I also warned you about attributions. You might like to read Controversial articles if you wish to try again. Good luck. Domdeparis (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Sonrisas1, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Catalan supremacism have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa Yeah, I was going to contact wikicommons about it myself and delete it if it was against policy. What do you think about this file. Does it have a copyright? I assumed it didn't require one since it is cropped from an organization which doesn't exist anymore and has no copyright holder as far as I'm aware. I looked around wikicommons for similar cases and found comparable ones called "own work", that is why I proceeded that way. Note it was my first upload, and it was in good faith. Sonrisas1 (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Under current copyright law, literary works and images are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Political prisoners in Spain for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Political prisoners in Spain is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Political prisoners in Spain until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Scolaire (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

By the way
I see on your user page that you intend to create a second account, solely for the purpose of having a second Sandbox. You don't need to. You can have as many sandboxes as you want, as long as they all begin with "User:Sonrisas1/". Hey presto! There's your new sandbox. Scolaire (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Type e.g. "User:Sonrisas1/sandbox 2" in the search box. It should bring you to a page saying "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. Before creating this page, please see Wikipedia:Subpages."
 * 2) Click on "Start the User:Sonrisas1/sandbox 2 page." It should bring you to an editing page with the heading "Creating User:Sonrisas1/sandbox 2".
 * 3) Type something and click "Save page".

Aha! Thanks Scolaire!Sonrisas1 (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2017 Barcelona anti-independence demonstrations, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. ''Please remove the article maintenance templates only when the issue has been resolved. A good tip, when creating an article, is to use your sandbox to build up the article and move it to main space only when the article is in a good condition. Thanks for editing and once again please remove the tags only when you have fixed the problem. '' Vasemmistolainen (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

AfD
Can I suggest that you change "Delete or Move" to "Delete or Move to 'Political prisoners in Francoist Spain'"? I only said "move" because I was commenting immediately under Calthinus's post, but yours is up near the top, so it might not be clear to contributors or to the closer what you are referring to. Scolaire (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Im not sure I can do anything anymore on wikipedia for the time being. My right click button has stopped functioning. Wouldn't that be equivalent of voting twice though?Sonrisas1 (talk) 14:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't say to !vote again at the bottom. I only suggested that you expand your "Delete or Move" at the top. At the moment you are voting twice, so you need to revert your latest edit. Alternatively you can change the earlier one to "Delete" ( Delete ). Scolaire (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I've done that for you. I hope you don't mind. Scolaire (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Sonrisas1, since you haven't gotten a proper welcome so far, I wanted to be the first: Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions, especially to articles related to Catalonia. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

I noticed you asked about referencing and citations: a core policy of Wikipedia is to maintain a neutral point of view, and to ensure that all content is verifiable through the use of citations to reliable sources. There are some templates you can check out, like cite book and cite web which will help you create clean, accurate there are others, as well. Keep in mind that all content on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, and any unsourced material can be challenged, and removed by anyone; the best way to avoid that, is with the liberal use of citations.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy it here, and decide to stay! Mathglot (talk) 05:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Seriously, you need to remove that copyrighted material from the talk page. As I said there, leaving a few key sentences would be all right. If you really want me to delete it for you, you'll need to ask me here, and if you ask me to delete it I won't leave anything. But please, don't do it again now that you've been warned. I've seen people being indefinitely blocked for that. Scolaire (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Scolaire Ok just delete it if you like. Its in the history anyways so can be recovered for future use. Sonrisas1 (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Some advise
I have no personal connection to Spain or Catalonia. I have some academic background in ethno-nationalist politics, but I don't really have an opinion here, and I was pointed to these deletion discussions by a noticeboard post. I have some experience editing controversial topic areas, and I can tell you from personal experience that you are not going to accomplish anything if you continue to defend the indefensible and attack other editors. You mentioned that you are relatively new, and I think that you might benefit a lot if you edited a less controversial topic area for a while you learn the ropes of Wikipedia - if nothing else, this could demonstrate to other editors that you aren't a single issue editor. The Catalonia articles will still be here when you get back. I'm not judging or casting stones here, because I have been in the same position you're in, but the path you're on either leads to endless conflict at best or a topic ban at worst. [[User:Nblund |Nblund ]]talk 00:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Nblund All I request is, if, as you say, you are neutral on this topic, spend more time using Google translate and investigating sources. The combination of POV editors (perhaps not you) and sloppy ones who take their opinion for granted is highly destructive. Any statement I make I invite you to investigate it. I will leave this topic for now, Asqueladd has proposed the same (see below). Sonrisas1 (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Advice
I think you are pretty close to a "beating a dead horse situation", while you are adopting a mildly confrontational stance (not without reason, I might add) that might unfortunately get you blocked (Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass). There are more options! I see you are wisely investing time in the Racism in Spain article. Aside from developing the later, you have a plethora of individual biographical articles left to create and develop about the topic (about the topic of a racialist discourse I see you are interested, I am too!), as well as of other "untouched" and "interesting" features of Catalan Nationalism. Sorry again for the patronizing. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Asqueladd, yes you are right. That was my last edit on the discussion. Thanks.Sonrisas1 (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. -- ferret (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

ferret Why have you blocked me and not Panotxa when I am the one who has disengaged from the edit war and who has not violated 3RR? Very strange.Sonrisas1 (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Sonrisas. I had nothing to do with you being blocked, but I can explain. If we call the "original version" at 06:18 on 5 December, then you reverted to the same version at, , , , and  (UTC). That's five times in 24 hours. I reverted you twice and Panotxa three times, so neither of us violated 3RR.
 * And before you say anything, I did not know that Panotxa was going to revert you, we did not communicate, and there was no tag-teaming. --Scolaire (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I did not have that in mind Scolaire. Why would I accuse you of anything? I don't even recall you being involved. Sonrisas1 (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you feel that way. Still, I it was probably no harm for me to say it anyway, for the benefit of other people reading this page, especially admins. Scolaire (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * ferret Panotcha is systematically tracking my edits and reverting them. Can you do something about this?Sonrisas1 (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Merging
This is not the proper way to revert a merge conducted accordingly to WP:MERGE, as you're doing in 2017 Barcelona anti-independence demonstrations. In your latest edit summary, you argue that this was a "drastic decision based on 3 votes". Yet I remind you that MERGE does not require an enormous quantity of votes for the merge to proceed (i.e. just the merger proposal is older than 30 days and nobody has objected, as long as there's a clear consensus). The three votes were all for merging, and the merging was based on policy. You even participated in the discussion and did not oppose such a merge, despite you being so far the only major contributor in such a page. No one else posted for more than 30 days (not even you), so the merge was due and conducted according to established proceedings. Now you say you object the merge and keep reverting it (despite that not being the way to challenge a merge).

If you want to challenge the merging, and as per WP:MERGECLOSE, a new discussion can be held if a page gets merged and someone later objects. Merges can be easily reversed if a consensus is formed against it shortly after it was performed. That's the way to proceed, not wildly keeping reverting a valid merge. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Not worth fighting over Impru20 but I don't think you have enough votes for a merge. But do as you wish. Sonrisas1 (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You should check Wikipedia's consensus policy, as well as some sub-policies such as WP:DEM and WP:VOTE. Consensus is not determined by quantity of votes, but for quality of arguments. MERGE does not require a minimum amount of votes to proceed, but a series of requirements that were met in this case (specifically, a rough consensus arising on the issue and enough time having passed to consider no one else is going to participate). Besides, even if you were to base your stance on the amount of votes cast, those in favour of merging would still outpoll those against by 3 to 0 (or 1, if we were to count your post-merge objection), so the merge would have still been due by all means and purposes. Impru20 (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Ciudadanos and WP:POINT
In reply to this, the answer is that Ciudadanos is the proper forum for discussing whether there should or should not be a section in Ciudadanos. I read the Ciudadanos talk page, and I saw that you made this comment immediately before you opened the new thread at Catalan independence movement. In other words you opened that thread just to make a point, which is against WP:POINT. What you need to do is go to Talk:Citizens (Spanish political party), open a new section, call it "Request for comment", then underneath the heading type, and under that, "Should the 'Alternative Views' section be removed?" and ~. Nothing more. You can say why you believe it should in the polling section underneath. Then ping users who have constructively edited the article, such as Mélencron and Impru20. Other ways of publicising the RfC can be found at WP:Requests for comment, such as notifying the Spanish, Catalan and Politics WikiProjects (provide a link to the RfC, and a brief statement, but do not argue the RfC). Then you can have the discussion where it belongs, and just let the discussion on the other page drop. Good luck. Scolaire (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "Then ping users who have constructively edited the article, such as Mélencron and Impru20."
 * Maybe it's because of the 4 months and the lack of big picture, but why only ping those users, and especially who decides what a constructive edit is and what is not? Sonrisas1? You?
 * What is the maximal scope of a ping, and how long must the poll be open?
 * What is going on here? CodeInconnu (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * They were the only names I recognised other than you and Sonrisas, hence "such as". I saw a lot of IPs, but you can't ping them. I didn't look at any individual edits, so I have no way of knowing who was constructive and who wasn't; those two are people who I expect to be constructive.
 * There is no "maximal scope of a ping". Sonrisas can ping who he likes, and you can ping who you like. I find it is a good way of letting interested parties know there is a discussion going on, rather than posting to their talk page, which can sometimes get you accused of canvassing.
 * Normally a poll stays open for a minimum of seven days, though it can be closed earlier in certain circumstances. How long it stays open after that depends on a number of things, such as whether a clear consensus has emerged or not. Scolaire (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough but I'm also doing this. CodeInconnu (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Scolaire Im putting on my suit and getting ready for family reunion, eating our 12 grapes after dinner. Not sure what you guys are up to in Ireland! We talk about it some time in a few days. But thanks for the heads up. Happy New Year!!!Sonrisas1 (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Following procedures,
I need to notify you of this. Cheers. CodeInconnu (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is at Sonrisas1 disrupting a talk page to make a point. I'm sorry to have to do that, but after all my offers of advice and help you chose to escalate the dispute at Talk:Catalan independence movement. That is not acceptable. Scolaire (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)