User talk:Vriullop

Welcome!

Hello, Vriullop, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Punkmorten 11:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 00:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Leptictidium (mt) 10:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vriullop! I hope et vagi tot bé. Estic de pas: m'en vaig a caçar espàrrecs, cargols o lo que sigui far from vivacissimos ;D (crec que ara toca bolet: ha plogut y he oído que asoman ya algunas tempraneras). Pero antes quisiera compartir ciertas reflexiones... un poco cabreado. After the Snowflake anecdote I take the opportunity to share some serious concerns I've observed in the background. Instead of shaking some jerk's head (jerk in this case, I hope accidentally), I'll jerk my head for some sake. I address you because you are a wp:ca trusted member, a wp:ca admin, and also because you was involved. I said 'anecdote'. I don't want fuss, and I think it can be used to extract some positive reflections in order to fix some bad habits (well, at least for me). I hope you share my concerns, and act accordingly. If you have doubts about any point expressed, we can ask for help to enlighten (I have little experience with wp policies, but I think it's just common sense). You know the timeline and circumstances. Analyze it under the catalan-related-articles-permanent-conflict perspective. I've observed:

• 1. Unethical behaviour. Blatant.
• 2. Bypassing the procedures to gain advantage, creating an unequal situation.
• 3. Interwiki inappropriate canvassing. Using wp:ca in order to disrupt a dispute over one wp:en article: it was not an user page... it was not 1000 user pages... it was La taverna... the Village pump!!!!!). Look at the post wording. Look at the explanation. If you see this procedural as normal, we need institutionalizing it. It's time to proposing a new Taverna space, calling it for example, "Battleground" (well, you get the point). Then you'll have ("obviously") a space for contact and recruitment, where you can find "friends" to fight other "friends" across wikipedias. I see it totally unacceptable, and I hope you move something to avoid it in the future. This cannot be normal, and actually seems it is.
• 4. Bad procedure due to "the precedents" (no good for the persistent conflict).

I consider Leptictidium an excellent contributor: he/she knows it. No problemo. My concerns are focused on the procedure. Just imagine this procedure in other context with different people, and we could have a very very very serious problem. Count on it.

Espero no haber sido duro en las maneras. Take care and thanks.

BTW: When some "trusted member" says (for example) in an important public debate there on wp:ca, that some evil guys are mashing into potatoes the catalan roots and the catalan related articles across wp:en, that person, as a "trusted member" of the wp:ca comunity, is provoking the holy war. While he's gaining the wp:ca community respect as "victim" (believe me, cheap way), he's inviting the wp:ca community to come here to fight The Evil Heretic, THE ANTI-CATALAN (oh my!). His doing is "The example", but... the worst example. At the same time indirectly he's closing the wp:ca community. Making it, if this is currently possible, more homogeneous. You have few "trusted members" with a lot of "examples". I hope you get the message. --Owdki ^talk 04:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got your point. I usually try to avoid cross-wiki discussions at ca.wiki. But it is difficult to discern if it is an announcement of an onging discussion, or it is a request for help, or it is an inappropriate canvassing. In this case I do not think it was bad faith, nor a cavassing purpose. I think that the discussion has been brought in a reasonable way. Nevertheless, I will continue recommending that la Taverna is not an appropiate place for such things. --Vriullop (talk) 15:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know it was in good faith (I can asseverate it just looking Leptictidium's sincerity when I asked for it). That's why I focused on the procedure: seems Leptictidium (and you) thought that he/she was doing the right thing. Your perception in this case is different, as you say that there wasn't canvassing purpose. Well, it's an anecdote used as trigger for discussion...

Two comments:

• "I will continue recommending", that's why I addressed you, I see a problem with that suggested "continuum". I dunno. I've seen your comment there (sincerely, thank you very much). Yeah, it's important talking about it. I hope it'll avoid some disgustos. You've expressed it clearly, neutrally and intelligently. Time will say.
• "it is difficult to discern". We don't need any eagle eye, just common sense. At a glance: is it tendentious? The most important question: is it neutral? Is the intention disrupting the outcome? (in the Snowflake case, post wording "to impose the spanish name, arguing that it's a translation politically motivated, ordered by the catalan regional government" + his own words: "(obviously) that is where I could draw the most supporters for this cause")! Anyway, betta "curarse en salut", isn't it? If the common sense doesn't work... nothing else will work.

Thank you very much for your grasp and comprehension, Vriullop. Keep up your good work (hey, m'agradan moltíssim les teves màximes!!!!). I'm out. --Owdki ^talk 07:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Xtv, I'm sure youre reading this: youre another "trusted member". You should know it betta than anyone else because you've been in the fuss! Can you manage fire? You know the background perfectly, and you haven't been capable. Be consequent, please. I ask you a question: interested for what? If most of the wp:ca community don't edit wp:en... What kind of interest could they have in a hypothetic case about "moving Girona to Gerona"? Push & fuss (trade mark), obviously. Edit war. The same as the "informer". Otherwise you'd inform inside wp:en avoiding canvassing for sure, but not the whole entire wp:ca community about a fucking title change (for example). Thus, there'd be people like User:Example singing "It's raining catapushers", without any clue because he doesn't read Viquipèdia. He just perceives something "strange" (a lot of wp:ca users falling from nowhere). Look at the discussion there: all the examples are "hot examples". Funny: it's selective (i.e., it's giving additional information about the "interests")! Nobody talks about (or even imagines) extending to the Taverna an hypothetic wp:en Triconodonta dispute (Hello, Leptictidium), if they lay eggs or not (displacing and extending an wp:en dispute there). For that reason procedures like third opinion exist, semidramatical step in consensus. Otherwise youre consumming recourses freely, stupidly... and boring, and stressing the whole system and its elements. Éramos pocos (y mal avenidos, y sin consenso) y parió la burra. Common sense, please. Common sense. --Owdki ^talk 08:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gràcies, però trobo curiós que no me l'hagin deixat directament a mi... :-P --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 13:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I didn't read the comment in Vriullop's page until he noticed me about it. I think it's better u write me directly if you have to tell me something, cause I didn't even knew that there was that discussion here. And this is the main point of the whole matter. I (as an example) have no time to check every day all the projects in which I contribute. Sometimes I am two weeks in en.wiki and I barely do anything in ca.wiki. And some days I was focussed in wiktionary. This does not mean that the other things don't interest me, precisely the opposite: I have to few time to cover all my interests. Then, many times (as it happened now) I miss discussions, projects or whatever. I think it is marvellous if, in some important aspects, somebody can inform (just inform, not recruit) to other people who might be interested about these things (look that when somebody writes a message in "La Taverna", always is the same people who comes here to write: me, Dúnadan, Martorell, etc., people who already contribute frequently in en.wiki but who -at least in my case- do not read English Village Pump). And Triconodonta is a good example of what people in ca.wiki is probably (in general) not interested. Cheers!--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 13:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think youre wrong. The main point of the whole matter is other, and you seem disregarding it. The main point is why I didn't reply you in la Taverna. If youre requesting "logic" in the communication process, the most logic request would be "replying you in the Taverna itself". May be it's the same reason why Mountolive don't edit there. And may be it's the same reason why Maurice27 left the discussion in that sacred place, The WikiProject Catalan countries (yeah! Catalan countries, not e.g. "catalan-speaking lands" as the Ramon Llull Institute translates). Spending time arguing about this, at this point, is shameful. I suggest you reflect on Vriullop words. Paradoxically he hasn't been in the fuss and he seems to have more clear than you the matter. Yes Xtv, we know very well this is not any blissful garden (oh, I can assure you!). I això és el que hi ha. Yep, it would be marvelous if <whatever>. Meanwhile that <whatever> doesn't violate Wikipedia policies. It's just common sense! If "always is the same people who comes here to write ... people who already contribute frequently in en.wiki", why don't you post "these things" in their wp:en user talk pages (obviously, avoiding the canvassing)? If you're trying to explain it's a way to encourage wp:ca people to edit wp:en... bad way because of tendentious way. Why exclusively "these things", hot topics, controversial topics, the sempiternal? Why not deep science? Why not sex related pages? Why not other topics?

As for your argument about my BTW as an example of "canvassing needed" for the sake of efficiency and communication, it's simple: Vriullop commented in your wp:en user talk page instead of your wp:ca user talk page. Although you are currently not active in wp:en (but you're active in wp:ca) you have got the message in the same day (well, I'm assuming when you talk about "notice you", you're talking about your talk page: may be you refer to another private way like Special:mail or cat-IRC, I dunno). Thus, have you had any problem?

"Triconodonta is a good example of what people in ca.wiki is probably (in general) not interested". Again, the same. Wp:ca community can have any specific interest meanwhile that interest don't collide with Wikipedia policies. Again, the same: it's just common sense!

I hope you don't mind if I move your comment here, where the discussion is taking place. Cheers. --Owdki ^talk 01:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bon vespre! SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 18:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

--

Hey, thanks for this help! Do you have any suggestions about how to get the date and time to show up uniquely once the page is substituted? Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ocaasi: I'm not sure how the message works with js. If I try the wiki way {{subst:Wikipedia:TWA/Welcome}} it works fine. --Vriullop (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ocaasi: I've tried a solution at MediaWiki:Guidedtour-tour-twa1.js in sendMessage function with var text = "{" + "{" + "subst" + ":" + msgPage + "}" + "}" Not sure of collateral effects with other messages. --Vriullop (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vriullop. 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]

Hello, Vriullop. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]