User talk:Benimerin

You have been blocked indefinately because I suspect that you are a sockpuppet of the blocked user Onofre Bouvila. While this is a new account, your interventions show that you are no newcomer to the way that Wikipedia works. The edits which you have made (I obviously include those made by 84.120.254.73 (talk · contribs), which you yourself have claimed) can hardly be described as constructive, and follow in the line of those made by Onofre Bouvila (talk · contribs). Please see our policy on sockpuppetry for more details, as you seem to have broken many of its provisions. Physchim62 (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): CheckUser suggests that it is unlikely that you are the same user as Onofre Bouvila. Physchim62 (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] Request handled by: Physchim62 (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence for sockpuppetry

Onofre Bouvila (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Benimerin (talk · contribs)
84.120.254.73 (talk · contribs)

Benimerin started editing as an anon ~~less than 24 hours~~ soon after Onofre Bouvila had been blocked. This (fixed) IP address had never previously been used to edit Wikipedia.
Benimerin immediately started to edit articles related to the Valencian Community, and from a "Catalanist" PoV; these were two characteristics of Onofre Bouvila's editing.
Benimerin immediately got himself into edit wars with other editors, something which is rare for a true newbie user. He was however, careful not to breach 3RR. His general editing approach shows that he had not simply been editing for two days, but rather that he had substantial experience of Wikipedia practices.
When editors complained on my talk page, Benimerin knew exactly where to find the complaints [1] [2]. How would anyone know that there could be complaints on my talk page, unless they had recently been involved in disputes with me? Onofre Bouvila was involved in a dispute on my talk page just before he was blocked. Don't forget that it is several weeks since I had edited articles related to the Valencian Community, there is no reason for an uninvolved editor to associate me with the current disputes.

Physchim62 (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs and links would be helpful for the admin evaluating this unblock request. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A CheckUser has been requested here for slightly different reasons, but the result may help in the review (assuming that the powers that be accept the request). Physchim62 (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration

A request for arbitration has been filed concerning the articles Catalonia and Valencian Community. You may, if you wish, make a statement as to whether this request should be accepted or not, although the final decision rests with the Arbitration Committee. Physchim62 (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial matters for the Request for arbitration

I have created a page where we can all expose our controversial matters in each of the articles filled in the request for arbitration. You are invited to contribute in it in order to explain our POVs to the comittee in a clear way. --Maurice27 13:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for breaking WP:3RR

As announced to you here [20:47, 12 July 2007 (last paragraph of my edit)] and here [20:47, 12 July 2007], you have been reported for breaking WP:3RR with a 4th revert and even 5th revert on articles Flag of Valencia and Valencian Community. You have been also reported for acting as a sock puppeteer of user Joanot for days.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Benimerin_reported_by_User:Maurice27_.28Result:.29

--Maurice27 23:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you did it again!!! That makes 3 WP:3RR in less than a week! Of course this one has also been reported. --Maurice27 19:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y... 2 en la frente!... 2 times you have been unable to accuse me of 3RR... And twice: "Result: No violation". Any other trick? But please, continue to uncover yourself, continue to accuse me of falsities and please... Continue to give those unforgivable reasons to revert me... I'm having such a wonderful time collecting all the "pearls" that you are writting and all the rules you are breaking for my next report...

I loved your "Please, recheck this possible violation. There are three reversions within 24 hrs" ROFL!!! I can't stop laughing every time I see it!!! You seemed so angry about the result and you kept insisting!!!!

You even accused me of being implied in a request for arbitration!!!!!!!!! ROFL!!! And what about you? You are so deliciously naïve...

Now, to serious things... You are erroneously using symbols which you don't know:

You are reverting me to add that the flag is used on sea and government buildings without even knowing what you are talking about. Not a single time you will see the Valencian flag on ANY ship (as that is forbidden by international law, but of course you didn't know it...)
You are reverting me to say that these flags are used "de facto" --> this is astonishing
You are reverting me to say that the 2:3 is used because of mimetism with the ratio of the flags of Spain and the European Union. This one is perfect, because you are stating that flags are changed in ratios just to mimetise with others... Well, then why germans do not change their flag to 2:3 when hoisted with the one of the EU like in this picture at the german parliament?
You are erasing each and every time the book reference that I added. Maybe that a published book explains that your edits are flase is driving you mad... Who knows...
You are erasing each and every time the pictures taken at the council of Alcoy and the spanish senate that I added. Is there any special reason for that?
And the best one, in order to keep the 1:2 flag as the principal one, you are even capable of describing the 2:3 as "Valencian flag often used in governamental buldings" as seen here. ROFL Without wanting, you are making it completely official.

You are making this a personal matter against me... But, I have sources, I have references, I'm not inventing arguments (WP:V, I have 5 other users agreeing with me, I'm not a sock puppeteer, I haven't broke 3 times in a week the 3RR... etc..etc... Sincerely, Joanot, it is up to you to continue digging your hole. Meanwhile I'm keeping record of everything --Maurice27 23:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another 3RR report for your collection (also reported)... That's makes 4 times you're breaking the rule in one week. Thattaboy! --Maurice27 10:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning before being reported for WP:V and WP:NOR in Flag of Valencia

Again, you are exposing completely unverified and/or invented arguments. Flags with different proportions can very well be hoisted aside like in the UN, NATO or EU. (see flags hoisted in the UN). You are starting to become an edit war specialised user who don't care about sources, references and opinion from other users. 3 other users apart me have expressed their opinions that, following the sources given by me, 2:3 proportions are the ones. You have already been reported for WP:3RR. I will, again, undo your edit to leave the one with sources. If reverting again, you will be reported for preventing WP:V (you are erasing sources given by me) and WP:NOR (your theory that 1:2 is more "representative"), apart that your countinuous edit warring. --Maurice27 13:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Catalonia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 00:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above arbitration case has closed. Maurice27 is banned for 30 days, and the parties to the underlying content disputes are encouraged to continue with the normal consensus-building process to produce high-quality articles. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 02:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House of Aragon

(I left you a message on your cawiki user) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't play with me...

As the guidelines about talk pages is telling, you have forgotten to sign your comment altough you put there a placeholder. I've made it for you already. Ciao baby. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 10:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the guideline...

"Own comments It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it.

Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Before you change, consider taking one of the following steps:

Contact the person(s) who replied (through their talk page) and ask if it is okay to delete or change your text.
use strike-through or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered.
- Strike-through is typed ~~like this~~ and ends up like this.
- A placeholder is a phrase such as "[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]". This will ensure that your fellow editors' irritated responses still make sense. In turn, they may then wish to replace their reply with something like, "[Irritated response to deleted comment removed. Apology accepted.]" M.

The guideline about discussion pages clearly states: "use strike-through or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered" (read here above what a place-holder is). A place holder has been added in every place I wrote, so I'm perfectly able to erase as many comments by myself as I wish. My username is also removed as I don't wish any longer to be related to that debate of yourselfs. Re add my text once again and I swear to Jesus Christ that I will report you! --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 07:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO THE USERS NOT RESPECTING MY WISH TO REMOVE MY COMMENTS

Read the guideline guideline about removing my own comments...

Own comments

It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it.

Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Before you change, consider taking one of the following steps:

Contact the person(s) who replied (through their talk page) and ask if it is okay to delete or change your text.
use strike-through or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered.
- A placeholder is a phrase such as "[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]". This will ensure that your fellow editors' irritated responses still make sense. In turn, they may then wish to replace their reply with something like, "[Irritated response to deleted comment removed. Apology accepted.]" M.

The guideline about discussion pages clearly states: "use strike-through or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered" (read here above what a place-holder is). A place holder has been added in every place I wrote, so I'm perfectly able to erase as many comments by myself as I wish. My username is also removed as I don't wish any longer to be related to that debate of yourselfs.

So, Benimerin:

I AM NOT OBLIGED TO SIGN ANY REMOVAL OF TEXT AS PER WP:ETIQ: "Sign and date your posts to talk pages, unless you have some excellent reasons not to do so"
I AM GRANTED TO REMOVE MY COMMENTS IF THAT IS MY WISH AS LONG AS I LEAVE A PLACEHOLDER AS PER WP:TPG
YOU BROKE THE 3RR REVERTING GRANTED BY WIKI GUIDELINES EDITS
YOUR MOVE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW YOUR GROUP ACTS. NOT LISTENING TO PEOPLE AND NOT RESPECTING THEIR GRANTED BY WIKI GUIDELINES WISH

NEXT TIME THAT YOU READD MY PAST COMMENTS TO THAT DEBATE YOU WILL BE REPORTED AS PER BREAKING THE WP:TPG, WP:ETIQ AND WP:3RR. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 10:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't shout me on my own talk page, be civilian. Thanks. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 11:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't attack me with bad words as 'dumbash". If you continue making personal attacks to me, I will fill a request to admins. You should sign all comments, this is not an "excellent" reason to not to do, is a very bad reason because you disrupt the debate. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 11:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be respectful, it's the third and last advice. It's not "palabras necias..." (idiot words). --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 11:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit war on ratio of flag on Senyera

I see that you want to change the caption of the flag on Senyera to say that it has a 1x2 ratio instead of a 2x3 [3], and you are propagating the changes to other two articles that mention the ratio [4][5]. However, the image of the flag clearly has 2x3 ratio, you can measure it yourself and see that it has 2 of heigth for 3 of length (dos d'alçada per tres de llargària), so I have no idea of why you want to change the ratio.

Could you explain on Talk:Senyera why the ratio is incorrect instead of edit warring with Maurice, and provide some source or image using that ratio? You are way beyond 3RR, having made several reverts accross several articles on the same topic, so I ask to stop reverting and explain your reasons to convince other editors of the rationale for those changes. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after reviewing a pair of the talk page and the Catalonia arb case, and seeing all the sources provided at here, here and here (with the last one being a mediation case) and almost all of Talk:Senyera_Real, I'm going to ask you that you provide reliable sources for the 1:2 flag before reverting again. You said that the sources for the 2:3 ratio are not valid, but you didn't provide any reliable source for the 1:2 ratio, apart from photographies. Hint: comparing photographies of flags is not helpful, specially when you can find legislation and a vexicological society that says that the proportions are 2:3, so please stop using photos of flags to prove your point.

If you really think that valencian legislation and a vexicological society are not good sources for the proportions of valencian flag, and that photographies of flags are a better source, then I suggest that you ask for opinions at WP:RSN. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that traditions are sometimes not written anywhere, but there is this verifibiality policy on wikipedia that says that editors must provide sources for the information. If you can't find any source for the 1:2 ratio then it shouldn't be on the article, and certainly you shouldn't be replacing 2:3 for 1:2 on several articles when there are some sources for 2:3. It seems that other editors have agreed to leave pictures of both versions on Senyera Real, where the historical ratios belong.

As a suggestion, you should find sources for the 1:2 thing and make a section called "Proportions" on that article, explaining the ratios used on medieval armories. Remember to include also the sources for modern usage, as an example of ratios used oficially on modern times (as opposed to traditional usage), like the 2:3 rations on a law on municipal flags, and the law by the gobierno valenciano, as example of how the 2:3 ratio is preferred on modern times as opposed to traditional times [6]. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm starting to get into that issue, (even so still trying to get more familiar with it), I'm in favor to keep the 2:3 flag as the main one without leaving out the other one. I'll keep watching and intervene in a neutral and hopefully helpful way. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Comunitat Valenciana. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) 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. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Despite my warnings, you have continued reversions like this one [7] where you are replacing the 2x3 flag with an image that says "(official)" on the name and that you uplodaded yourself. However, you are perfectly aware ~~that the official valencian flag is 2:3~~ that the valencian government has not set official proportions for the flag, and that it has regulated that flags of local entities should preferribly use 2:3 ratios on their flags. Also, stop trying to edit war to replace a valencia-speaking table with catalan-speaking template on a zone where the official language is valencian and not catalan. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors reverting you because they don't agree with the sources you provided is not a team against you.... I suppose that you have already noticed that this is not true because you have removed it from your comment after writing it, so I expect you not to make those accussations again. (hay un incluso una página humorística WP:CABAL acerca de este tipo de acusaciones)

I would like you to understand that the problem here is the lack of sources for the 1:2 proportion. There are some sources for the 2:3 ratio being the preferred ratio, so Maurice is acting inside wikipedia policies by refusing to let sourced information be replaced for unsourced information, even if the sources are weak. Maurice already satisfied the WP:BURDEN burden of proof with those sources. (explanation on catalan of WP:BURDEN satisfaction: es refereix a la "càrrega de la prova". Diu que és responsabilitat del editor que afegeix o treu informació el proveir proves. En aquest cas, Maurice ha proveit proves per als seus canvis, o sigui que pot fer aquests canvis, mentre que tú no has proveit proves equivalents quan ho has has tret del article.)

The articles originally had an unsourced 1:2 ratio, but then Maurice found sources for 2:3 ratio, and started replacing it. Other editors complained that there was evidence of 1:2 usage on the real world, even if there were no sources for it, so a compromise was reached that Senyera Real (the article on the historical usage) showed both ratios, and that the design section mentioned both usages. That's a normal part of wikipedia's writing of articles and of dispute resolution, it's normal that the articles evolve over time as sources are provided by editors. It also seems that other editors were ok with the compromise, and you are the only one opposing. You need to find stronger sources for the 1:2 ratio instead of trying to edit war the ratio into the articles.

In short: find sources for the 1:2 ratio to convince other editors instead of edit warring. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it seems that you are the only editor insisting on replacing the 2:3 flag with the 1:2 flag [8], and Maurice27 is the only one reverting you. Mind you, the 2:3 flag was up for almost a year with no one complaining, and it wasn't placed by Maurice. It was placed by User:Readro on 14 September 2007 (two moths after the last edit war) [9] when replacing a fair use image.

Also, apart from you, I can only see an IP making the same change as you, on 9 February 2008, providing no explanation [10], and what Maurice did was reverting it back on 26 March 2008 [11]. The edit war only started on 12 August 2008 when you went back to the 1:2 version [12].

It also seems that all the 1:2 flags that you are using were all created by you this one and one, which gives the appeareance that you want to [WP:OWN|own the articles about that flag and prevent other editors from changing it from your favourite version]]. You are even reverting to the flag that has "official" on the name instead to the image with the more neutral title "1:2 ratio" that was created to avoid conflicts.

I also see that on July 2007 you were saying that the compromise was to have a 2:3 flag on the infobox and a 1:2 flag on a section[13], but you were edit warring to keep a 1:2 version on the section, while you kept the 1:2 version on the infobox against the compromise that you cite yourself.

In other words, you don't seem to have convinced other editors of the need to place a 1:2 flag on the article, and you are the only one trying to push the flag into the article, and, by your own words, you even seem to be ignoring the compromise that was reached. So, stop edit warring already, and go to the talk page to raise support from other editors about the need for a 1:2 flag on the infobox. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mention the compromise, but you said yourself that the compromise was to keep a 2:3 flag on the infobox! [14]. And in the mediation case there is only one IP really disagreeing with having a 2:3 (and I think that the IP was you, I'm not sure), so it's still only you insisting on that flag. You are the only one insisting on that flag. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is not going anywhere. If you don't oppose, I'm going to open a WP:RFC on the talk page to ask for comments. If other editors really agree with the necssity of having a 1:2 flag, then it should be clear there. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.D.: So, tell me if you agree with opening a History RFC on the talk page of the article to get more opinions. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Valencia

You got a new answer here: [15] . Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment on original research

Followup to my comment here As one example of the dangers of original research done by persons who are not experts on vexicology or history, you provided this article [16], but you failed to point at where on the article it mentions the proportions of the flags on the pictures, and where it mentions how they are relevant to anything. Also, you centered in 1:2 depictions, but the Joan Martínez's portulan has 1:1 vertical flag. You should leave all the investigation to secondary sources, who will have access to sources that you don't have access to, and training to determine how those historical sources are relevant. You shouldn't endlessly try to insist on your ideas of how those depictions are relevant. Well, actually, wikipedia explicitally forbids your sort of original research, so stop trying to pass it a reason for edits to articles, because it's not going to work. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Please refrain of page moves which could be seen as controversial without taking the matter to requested moves. Regards, Asterion^talk 20:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Toddst1 (talk) 12:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Benimerin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've given reasons about every edit I've made on talk page of Talk:Valencian Community. Other users reverted this and any reason well explained on talk page weren't given, specially User:Maurice27 (read his unrespectful response: It doesn't even deserve an answer. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 20:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)). Also I would like to complete my WP:3AN report, it's incomplete, and I would like to complete this, but if I'm blocked, I can't do this.[reply]

Decline reason:

Engaging in discussion doesn't excuse edit-warring; the actions of others aren't relevant to you own unblock request. east718 // talk // email // 13:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Post Data: If you decide not to unblock me, at least... Could you mind to add the following info to the report I've made, please?:

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place -->

* Previous version reverted to: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=234956624]

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->
* About the {{tl|3O}} and {{tl|Catalan-speaking world}} templates:
** [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=230696558 21:48, 8 August 2008] Maurice27 inserts {{3O}} tag bottom of lead text.
** [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=230704971 22:37, 8 August 2008] Mountolive removes tag arguing that it should be discussed first.
** 1st revert: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=230713802 23:35, 8 August 2008], by Maurice27.
**: 1st change: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=231348290 00:53, 12 August 2008], I remove {{3O}} tag.
**: 2nd change: [], I've made some changes, and add {{Catalan-speaking world}}.
** 2nd revert, and last changes were lost: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=231455306  14:16, 12 August 2008], by Mountolive.
** 3rd revert: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=231467354 15:23, 12 August 2008], by me.
** 4th revert: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=231469097  15:32, 12 August 200], by Mountolive.
** 5th revert: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=231518146 19:55, 12 August 2008], by me.
**: 1st change: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=231523339  20:22, 12 August 2008], by me, adding info about a sign language.
** 6th revert and last changes were lost: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=231532585 12:36, 14 August 2008], by Maurice27.
** 7th revert, recovering also last changes made by me: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=231892466 12:36, 14 August 2008], by me.
** 8th revert, removing {{tl|Catalan-speaking world}} and putting again {{tl|3O}}: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=231907218 14:18, 14 August 2008], by Mountolive.
** 9th revert: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=231961914  19:48, 14 August 2008], by me.
** 10th revert: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=231975239  21:03, 14 August 2008], by Maurice27.
** User Enric Naval made a mediation, and {{tl|Catalan-speaking world}} stays in the article: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=232006251 00:20, 15 August 2008].

* About the {{tl|Unbalanced}} tag:
** [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=232572494 22:57, 17 August 2008]: I've removed {{tl|3O}}, because the debate was stayed, and Maurice27 didn't wanted to participate more about this, see on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries/Official denomination in the infobox|this talk page]].
** 1st revert: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=232634014 06:26, 18 August 2008], by Maurice27.
** 2nd revert, [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=233086366 10:25, 20 August 2008], by user JeremyMcCracken.
** 3rd revert: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=233092973 11:23, 20 August 2008], by Maurice27.
** 4th revert: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=233284830  08:38, 21 August 2008], by user Xtv.
** 5th revert: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=233396268  20:15, 21 August 2008], by Maurice27. Replaces {{tl|3O}} by {{tl|Unbalanced}}.
** 6th revert: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=233552523 15:29, 22 August 2008], by me.
** 7th revert: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=233596129 19:39, 22 August 2008], by Maurice27.

* About the name of "Valencian Community" to "Region of Valencia" (and still about {{tl|Unbalanced}}):
** 1st revert: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=234847670  20:05, 28 August 2008], by Maurice27, 
**: 1st change: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=234871226  22:17, 28 August 2008] {{userlinks|Dúnadan}} removes {{tl|Unbalanced}}.
** 2nd revert: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=234937822 06:23, 29 August 2008], by Maurice 27.
**: 1st change: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=234954293 09:04, 29 August 2008], I recover my last editings.
**: 2nd change: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&diff=234956624&oldid=234954293  09:28, 29 August 2008], I made several editings.
** 3rd revert: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=234993527  14:32, 29 August 2008], by Mountolive.
**: 1st change: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=235001347  15:16, 29 August 2008], I recover my last editings.
** 4th revert: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=235016967 16:48, 29 August 2008], by Maurice27.
** 5th revert: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=235159628  10:35, 30 August 2008], by me.
** 6th revert: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=235162830 11:10, 30 August 2008], by Maurice27.
** 7th revert: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Valencian_Community&oldid=235163731 11:19, 30 August 2008], by me, and reporting here. 

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning: [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Valencian_Community#Moving_to_Region_of_Valencia. About my editings], [http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Valencian_Community#Unbalanced_tag About the "Unbalanced" tag].

* I've reported also a Wikiquette alert: [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=prev&oldid=231431061 11:19, 12 August 2008] because of lack of civility from Maurice27. One [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AValencian_Community&diff=234847282&oldid=234834909 response] from him to my reasons given to [[Talk:Valencian Community]] is also unrespectful.

Thanks. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 12:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]