User talk:Kurrop

Before start an edit warring, I ask you to discuss before making such controversial changes.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 21:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are changing a wikipedia rule. Look all the stubs templates and they have all just one flag, the one related exclusively to that territory. If you want to change this rule, the Catalan stub template is not the place to do it.

About the Generalitat de Catalunya thing, if the article is called Generalitat de Catalunya, why need to give it another name if we have to link to Generalitat de Catalunya? better call things for its (official) name...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 21:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{California-geo-stub}}, {{Provence-geo-stub}}, {{Sicily-stub}}, {{Corsica-geo-stub}}, {{Limousin-geo-stub}}, ..., ..., ... I don't find any with two flags. And following the second definition of Rule (Standardization, a formal and widely-accepted statement, fact, definition, or qualification), it seems is standard to have just one flag, not two.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 22:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I show you that wikipedia uses a (perhaps non written) rule to put flags in stub templates. And the rule is putting just one as I said.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 22:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not static and it can change, but this doesn't mean it is an anarchy. There are many things that try to be standarized, uniformized, not the opposite. Putting two flags is slightly breaking the harmony of stub templates. Moreover, WP:Stubs recomends to use no images, so better one than two. And finally, if it is not written doesen't mean that doesen't exist. Just that it is not written.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 22:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion? which confusion? we are dealing with Catalonia stubs and there is the flag of Catalonia. Where is the confusion? Sorry but this answer seems trolling.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three Revert Rule

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. -- Merope 14:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore

Your edits all seem to be pushing a particular Point of View. As you may not know, Wikipedia strives for neutrality in its presentation. While I recognize that this is a particularly contentious issue, please do not make these sort of changes to articles without discussing the matter on the associated talk pages. You can discuss the changes there with other editors and try to reach consensus before making any controverial edits. Please review our policy about reversions and remember not to revert more than three times in a 24 hour period. Circumventing this policy by timing your edits and refusing to use the talk pages will also result in a block. Please try to work with other editors to acheive consensus before making these sorts of changes to articles. Thank you. -- Merope 17:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entries of Catalan people

Dear Kurrop, I would like to salute your contributions to some entries that fall under the scope of the wikiproject I am working in. However, I must draw your attention to a particular delicate issue. When providing a context for the entries about these people there has been a long time running controversy whether how they should be defined (Catalan? Spanish?). In such discussions is not likely that one side will persuade the other one as there are good rationale supporting both solutions (for some it is natural to provide a context based on citizenship, for others it makes better sense to provide a cultural context). In the worst cases it ends up in a pointless edit of war of people alternatively interchanging "Catalan" and "Spanish". To avoid such sad situations the best solution I know consists in keeping both words, i.e. defining those people as "Spanish Catalan". It provides both kinds of contexts at the same time and it should satisfy reasonable POV pushers from both sides. If you agree with that, I would appreciate very much to have your collaboration to keep that solution in these articles. Thanks in advance. Cheers and have happy editing! --Carles Noguera (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurrop, ahora ya conoces el tenso ecosistema que nos rodea: la próxima vez que vuelvas, p.f. pasa por la página de discusión. Si no lo haces, estate seguro que yo no pasaré por la tuya. Iré directamente a ANI. Cheers. --Owdki ^talk 15:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cosialscastells

Found an old account to edit with, have we? Do it again and you'll be blocked. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 13:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map at Spanish Empire was placed there after a long and tortuous discussion. If you want to change it, put your reasons on the talk page and wait for others to reply, rather than repeatedly revert the actual article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Antarctica. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quim Torra

Hi. There are also plenty of sources pointing to Torra as the 131st President ([1] [2] [3] [4] as examples). Nonetheless, what is fully determinant is that such numering has been assumed officially by the Generalitat of Catalonia for many years ([5]), so, be it incorrect or not from your perspective (and there are indeed arguments against such a numbering), it is the currently official numbering as of now and it is not for us to interpret whether it is correct or not. That does not preclude alternative numbering from being used, but the numbering issue is already explained in List of Presidents of the Government of Catalonia (specifically, the "Alternative versions" section), which the Quim Torra article already links. Impru20^talk 12:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The official version says that China and Venezuela are democracies? Certainly, it doesn't look like that. Nonetheless, I've spotted this discussion. It seems that there is a very clear consensus on this issue, so I'll defer myself to that. Impru20^talk 09:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]