Talk:President of the Valencian Government

Recent edits

@Baprow: I'm sincerely not understanding your recent string of edits. Could you please elaborate what do you mean with this and this? I also see no correlation between what you say and your edits. Why do you keep removing Sánchez de León as acting president from the timeline and changing the colors, and what has that to do with a parliamentary term lasting four years? Impru20^talk 16:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't understand you. You accuse me of changing the colors, but the colors I put in are basically the same (with slight variations). In fact, the last ones I have posted are the exact same ones you posted and your accusation persists. And I repeat to you again. I have structured the timeline of four in four years to coincide with the regional legislatures (for example, the last president Ximo Puig has two legislatures, the one from 2015 to 2019 and from 2019 to, presumably, 2023). I think this helps to see how many periods each person has governed. Regarding Sánchez de León, his acting presidency lasted only a few days and, in any case, her name on the timetable is not consistent with the rest and remains like a glob. --Baprow (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Baprow: I ask you to please undo your edits until this discussion is over, or else I'll have to consider this as a blatant case of disruptive edit warring. What you are doing here is very reckless and unpolite, specially after you have been asked to discuss the issue.

With slight variations Yes, and I'm disputing those slight variations with respect to the templates at use. Why? There is any purpose in making "slight variations" to the colours or it's just a matter of your own taste? Because it that is the case, there is no reason at all to make the change. There is no reason at all to use different shades than those used in the article.

Your argument for changing to "regional legislatures" is also absurd: legislatures do not have to last for four years. If a snap election is called, the parliamentary legislature will be shorter. In fact, you seem to consider 1979-1983 as a legislature, which it wasn't. Easy to understand, right? Attempting to impose that correlation to the reader is confusing and misleading.

I think this helps to see how many periods each person has governed. Regarding Sánchez de León, his acting presidency lasted only a few days and, in any case, her name on the timetable is not consistent with the rest and remains like a glob. Ok, so you acknowledge having removed Sánchez de León and mixing parliamentary terms with executive terms just because your own preference rather than because any encyclopedic purpose. This is not customary practice elsewhere in Wikipedia and you are giving no reason why this specific article should be different.

We can discuss this issue further, but I please ask you again to undo your edits while the discussion is ongoing. Impru20^talk 16:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Why? There is any purpose in making "slight variations" to the colours?. I remind you that my timeline and my colors were there before you made your changes. I could ask you the same.

legislatures do not have to last for four years. Okay. And if there are early elections that break that trend, I will be the first to put the years from 5 to 5, but until then I think it is more appropriate to provide information on when the elections took place.

Ok, so you acknowledge having removed Sánchez de León and mixing parliamentary terms with executive terms just because your own preference rather than becaus No, as I have already shown you, the interim presidency of Sánchez de León, apart from being brief, we could say that he had his functions shared with Juan Cotino. And if you still insist on putting it on, better do it right.--Baprow (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I remind you that my timetable and my colors were there before you made your changes. Excuse me? "My" timetable? "My" colors? Get yourself accustomed to WP:OWN. This is not your timetable. These are not your colours. This is not your article. Btw, the colours in the templates have been in place for... almost a decade? If you got the colour shades wrong then that's your problem, not that of anyone else that comes to fix them. This possessive behaviour from you on this article and its elements is very worrying.

Okay. And if there are early elections that break that trend, I will be the first to put the years from 5 to 5, but until then I think it is more appropriate to provide information on when the elections took place. This reply makes little sense and does not answer the concerns I brought forward. 1979-1983 was not a legislature. Parliamentary terms do not necessarily correlate to a president's term (in fact, they don't: Zaplana resigned in 2002, then Olivas succeeded him for the next year. The parliamentary term was unchanged, but that of the president was changed. Same for Camps and Fabra in 2011).

So, brief presidencies do not count for you? I'd assume you'd exclude half the Spanish prime ministers from the timeline because of their tenures lasting days or weeks. Lol. Even if interim, Sánchez de León (who is a "she", not a "he"; not sure if it's a wrong use of English or that you don't know about her gender) exercised as acting president. Cotino didn't. The source you did bring actually shows that the leadership of the government was given to Sánchez de León (Cotino only exercised representative functions he already had for granted by virtue of his office as president of the Cortes). Can you bring a source claiming that both of them acted as co-presidents during this time?

Finally, and for a second time, I please ask you to undo your edit at least until this discussion is over. Impru20^talk 16:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I would beg you to stop using semantics against me. You know perfectly what I'm saying, and moreover I don't consider very polite to make fun of mistakes.

Secondly, what I am translating in the timeline is the parliamentary term, not the presidential term. In the case of Zaplana, someone who sees the table will know that Zaplana resigned before the term ended because the date of the elections is every four years.

Third, there are many other tables in this and other Wikipedias where interim and very brief political offices are not counted. It's not outrageous. And I repeat it, if you want to put Sánchez de León, at least put it well.--Baprow (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all, and for the third time, I please ask you to undo your latest edit until this discussion is over. From here, not doing it will mean you are acting with a complete lack of politeness, good faith and constructive spirit.

Secondly, claiming ownership over elements in the article as you did is not an issue of "semantics".

Thirdly: what I am translating in the timeline is the parliamentary term, not the presidential term You seem to acknowledge having overlooked the dozens of times that I stated that "the parliamentary term does not equal to the presidential term" (with that in mind, it makes no sense to convey that correlation into the timeline). I'll assume you overlooked that as an accident as per WP:AGF (and despite we both being perfectly aware you didn't), but not anymore. As in the next argument you seem to make a comparison with other articles in this Wikipedia on the issue of acting presidents, I remind you that other articles in this Wikipedia do not divide the timeline by "parliamentary terms": that's a choice of your own that has no other basis but your own preference.

And finally, what is done in "other Wikipedias" is not of our concern, because they work under their own rules. Nonetheless, this one is a point in which I don't have a strong stance anyway, so I'm willing to drop the case for having acting presidents in the timeline as long as consistency is achieved (that means Olivas shouldn't be shown as president before 24 July 2002, either). Impru20^talk 17:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I have not claimed ownership of anything at all. I have said "my timetable" and "my colors" and "your colors" and "your timetable" not to say "the timetable that I put originally", "the colors that I put originally", "the colors that you put after my contribution" or "the way you have modified the timetable that I put". You are making a personal interpretation and seeing bad faith where there is none.

Look, I have divided the timetable into periods of 4 in 4 years. The reason, that this division coincides with the celebration of the regional elections (which marks the beginning and the end of each legislature) and allows giving additional information to the readers. You want to put it 5 in 5 years because ... you want to put it like this because you say it is the right thing to do, without giving any reason. Why not set the time frame at two years or ten years or fifteen years? Your position seems inexplicable to me. Explain why, being able to use a chronological division that does not hurt anyone and, in fact, provides extra information to whoever reads it, you prefer that other one.

If you agree to eliminate Sánchez de León, I agree to set the starting date for Olivas' mandate as you have proposed. No problem on that.--Baprow (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Er... the discussion is still ongoing. Not only did you refrain from undoing your previous edit, but made a new one without I having agreed with that (not yet at least). I said I contemplated removing Sánchez de León from the timetable, not that you could use it as some bargaining chip in such a rude and distasteful way. I've intentionally refrained from further editing the article prevent causing any more conflict, but you simply don't care. The page is not yours to reign, and you only keep evidencing your total disregard for the other party with every one of your moves. Again, and for a fourth time, I politely ask you to please revert your (now two) latest edits.

On the WP:OWN issue, just quote yourself: "I remind you that my timetable and my colors were there before you made your changes." and "the timetable that I put originally", "the colors that I put originally", "the colors that you put after my contribution" or "the way you have modified the timetable that I put". That is ownership. It doesn't matter how you put it: suggesting that I can't edit some parts of the article because you added some other thing before, or arguing that I can't edit something because I would overwrite your edits, falls under WP:OWN as well. I made the changes to bring the timeline in line with other similar timelines throughout Wikipedia and with the color shades currently in use in the templates (and that is a good reason for change). You reverted it on the basis that you seemingly have some right over it because you added it before (that's not a good reason for reverting). I don't have to ask you anything, and you still have not given an explanation about why we should use different shades than the ones in the Wikipedia templates other than you complaining about how bad I was for overwriting your previous edit. That's just in breach of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Yes, you are again giving the same reason about the correlation with regional elections, a correlation that doesn't exist. On the "5 in 5 years" issue: I have put it on multiples of 5 (1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, etc) which signal the beginning, the middle and the end of a decade. And you know why? Because this is how this is done everywhere else in the English wikipedia: example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5, example 6, example 7, example 8, example 9... and many more that could be mentioned. So no, you are not right here. Your edits are in error and you should be wise and accept it rather than keeping on this rather reckless behaviour. Impru20^talk 22:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I defend some changes that I made many months ago because I considered them (and still consider them) appropriate. You defend some changes that you made a week ago and that you considered (and still consider) appropriate. Calling them "my edition", "your edition", "your colors", "my colors" is a way of summarizing and it is by no means untrue. It is what it is. I am not "claiming ownership" of anything. If you want to interpret it like that, it's up to you. And, furthermore, it is absurd to say that the phrase "the colors / timetable that I put" is also a claim to ownership. What do I have to say, that someone else put it, when it's not true? I put them in because I thought they were appropriate and I still do. If I had not put them but considered them appropriate, I would continue to defend them.

You reverted it on the basis that you seemingly have some right over it because you added it before ...

Again, your malicious interpretation. That is, if you change something, it is because it is the good thing, the right thing and the right way. But if I want a previous change to be maintained, it is because I believe I am the king of the page. Well no, sir. Maybe you are projecting your beliefs onto me.

Also, if you make an effort, you will see that I have not touched your template and that I agreed to standardize the colors. Right now, the only differences are, in the timeline, the presence of Sánchez de León, the size of the same and the way in which the years are divided.

And I'm not going to admit that my edits are wrong because they are not. You can cite all the examples you want, but there is no rule that prohibits dividing the years from 4 into 4, a more appropriate division because it indicates the duration of the legislatures and, therefore, gives more information to the reader. Moreover, each timeline that you have shown me has similarities but also quite considerable differences, which indicates the absence of a standard as closed as the one you suggest.

The only mistake on my part was to believe that you were willing to reach some kind of compromise, because I can see that you are even retracting the proposal to remove Sánchez de León if we limited Olivas's mandate and you use it as an excuse to say the I actued "rude" and "distasteful".--Baprow (talk) 12:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

"Your edit breaks the aesthetics of the timeline. The presence of Sánchez de León does not create a void, it creates a crowd of names (and for a week it is not worth it, as it happens in other tables)". This is your edit summary. First notice I have that this was about "aesthetics", but this complaint is absurd. Sánchez de León only adds one additional row and causes no aesthetical issue at all (can you please elaborate on that?), and there are encyclopedic reasons supporting her addition. I said I was willing to concede on it before you acted in bad faith by imposing your own version of the chart without the discussion being over and without I having consented on it. I retracted on it because you started using it as a bargaining chip against me. You just don't go on the re-edit an article in which there is a content dispute while such dispute is in discussion. This one you bring now is but a very poor excuse to keep on your edit warring. You have not replied for over a week, and you only cared to do so when I reinstated the previous version of the article (something which, as per WP:BRD and WP:POLITE, I asked you to do for the duration of the discussion, a call that went unheeded four times).

These were your own words on the ownership issue: "I remind you that my timetable and my colors were there before you made your changes." and "the timetable that I put originally", "the colors that I put originally", "the colors that you put after my contribution" or "the way you have modified the timetable that I put" This is not a "malicious interpretation", specially after you have repeteadly assured that you somehow have some right to hijack the timeline chart and prevent others from editing it because of a "your edits were there before"-rationale, which is WP:OWN. Even if you claim you didn't intend to say that, you're effectively acting as if you owned the timeline chart, successively and systematically reverting every edit I make to it just because you don't like that some of your edits from several months ago are changed rather than because of any logical reasoning.

"You can cite all the examples you want, but there is no rule that prohibits dividing the years from 4 into 4". Should I remind you what you said one week ago? "there are many other tables in this and other Wikipedias where interim and very brief political offices are not counted". So, what this and other Wikipedias may say seemingly counts for interim presidents (of which obviously you won't find many, since those are not that frequent) but instead you ignore your own argument on consistency on the issue of the year-division, which can be easily checked literally everywhere? You've been given A LOT of examples that prove you wrong on that issue. You simply didn't care to reply to it for one week, or to even acknowledge that you were proven wrong once I was bold and re-implemented the change myself on the basis of such consistency. Now, you dismiss it as "You can cite all the examples you want", efectively evidencing that it doesn't matter what is done elsewhere, it doesn't matter what the actual arguments in support of that are: you just don't like it, so it must be done your way.

I've had enough of this and of this drama-like behaviour you are showing now. This is just unnecessary, and only self-evidences that you have little will at seriously discussing this issue other than to impose your whim, even if it means going against your own previous statements. On the other hand, your concessions so far seem more based on the fact that those were outrightly undefensible under Wikipedia guidelines (such as the colour issue, which was really not justifiable by any means).

"And I'm not going to admit that my edits are wrong because they are not." Yes, they were. There was a discussion ongoing, and you kept editing the article anyway while that discussion was taking place. That in itself is bad enough; the fact that you stopped replying here (surely in the hopes that I wouldn't re-edit the article) until I actually came to edit it only points out further evidence of you caring little to nothing about the actual discussion, but on which version of the article stands. Impru20^talk 13:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I told that you have to put the name well, because the name of PSL is clearly different to the others. That you don't care about trying to understand what he was talking about is another matter. And those other changes that, according to you, I did not reject because they were "indefensible", the reality is that I never rejected them. I was against the change in the size of the table, the change in the numbering and the introduction (badly done, in addition) of the name of PSdL. And it is clear that you are not free of contradictions either. My edits are not wrong per se, as you say. And it is not the first time that we collide here because of this matter, so the discussion about the changes can be traced back to then, then you are the one who is knowingly introducing changes in an open and never closed discussion.--Baprow (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

You again have reverted it. You brought a new excuse on "aesthetics" as justification for the previous revert, but now you say that "I had to put the name well" (?). What should be her name be to be "well", according to you? Specially since you have removed her outright from the chart without changing her name to "well" yourself. This is a very poor excuse.

That you don't care about trying to understand what he was talking about is another matter. Excuse me, who is "he"?

I was against the change in the size of the table, the change in the numbering and the introduction (badly done, in addition) of the name of PSdL. This is the first time you say anything about the name of Sánchez de León. This is also the first time you make any mention of it, but this is a chart so I don't know what you mean with "introduction". The size of the table at 800 would be the same as that used for articles on other regional presidents in Spain (don't know why this article should be different, except for you not liking the change). On the "change in the numbering" I guess you mean the yars: this has been already explained and you have not refuted it.

So far, you keep reverting the edits over, and over, and over, and over, but prove yourself unable to refute anything of what has been said. Instead, you keep bringing new excuses (which, btw, do not correspond with what you actually do in your edit reverts), and the ultimate justification seems to be always the same: that somehow my edits were inferior because yours were before, and so it's yours that should take priority. For the nineteenth time, that is not a justification to prevent other people from editing. I seriously don't know if this is a joke or if you are just being merely disruptive for the sake of it, but I'm considering bringing your behaviour to the attention of other venues if this keeps ongoing this way. I welcome discussion and reaching compromise where reasonable, but most of your points are not even close to reasonable (nor do you even make the slightest attempt for them to look so), and it's just as if you just sought for the discussion to end without any change being done by bringing endless new excuses, and to keep yourself reverting until that is accomplished. That's unacceptable. Impru20^talk 15:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Btw, it was me who started this discussion, so this edit is non-sensical and false. I started it precisely because of I disputing your edits; I wished to keep it ongoing but you stopped replying one week ago. If you wish to forestall discussion and to stop arguing anything it's your call, but you cannot pretend to use your own behaviour as an excuse for withholding any further edit being made in the article. It has been reverted to the state it was before the controversy started. Respect that and stop this crazy disruption, because this looks more obsessive every new action you take. Impru20^talk 15:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Baprow: What does this even mean? Can you elaborate how is it that it's you the one deciding what timespan is worth for a person to be depicted in the chart? Can you source it or, at least elaborate on the absurd new arguments you keep adding with every new edit? Can you also explain why do you keep reverting the year-span when evidence and customary practice elsewhere overwhelmingly proves you wrong? Can you care to at least make it as if you cared a little bit about WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EW? Thanks. Impru20^talk 15:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

First of all. If we include interim presidents in the table, even when their term does not exceed one week in length (if it were more than a month, still, but not like that) why not accidental presidents? Oltra and Dalmau were interim presidents of the Generalitat during Ximo Puig's vacations, two terms of two weeks Oltra in 2015 and 2018 and one of eight days Dalmau in 2019. It is better to leave those who held the position as incumbents and let the substitutes have their place of honor in the table above. In addition, you insist on placing the name Sánchez de León in black, breaking the aesthetic unity of the timeline.

Second, the current size of the table makes it large enough to be visible without taking up too much space. The proportion that you defend is too constrained. I would understand if it were a very large timeline with many years but in this case it is excessive, I think.

Thirdly, I have already explained to you several times the reason for dividing the years from 4 to 4 to coincide with the holding of the elections and the regional legislatures. It brings more information to the reader than just leaving it 5 to 5 years.--Baprow (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Baprow: Firstly: you are well aware that interim/acting presidents are not the same as "accidental" presidents. So I don't know what you intend to convey with this absurd comparison, which merely constitutes a brand new excuse.

Secondly: so 800 is not large enough to be visible. Despite it being so. Cool. I don't see any constrain, and in fact many timelines throughout Wikipedia use smaller (or larger) sizes depending on the number of presidents depicted: in this case, the timeline chart is very small, so it's not sure why do we need a large size. I've only brought it in line with those for other regional presidents in Spain. What's your excuse on here?

Thirdly: no, it doesn't bring "new information" and you have been explained why. Parliamentary terms do not have to coincide with presidential ones; there was no election in 1979; elections are already shown in a separate column in the main table (thus, arguing that doing so in the chart "adds new information" is false), and so on. You have also been told how diving the years from 5 to 5 is customary practice elsewhere, which was your own argument at the beginning of the discussion. You are now ignoring it because it doesn't fit your purposes, instead sticking to your original argument (which has been disproven). It'd be good for you to openly acknowledge that and to stop waging such a bizarrous edit war.

Fourth: you've replied to almost no one of my other questions on the remainder of your chaotic reasonings.

Fifth: You are behaving exactly the same as you did in December 2019 with another article, exactly on the same issue of timelines. You are being repeteadly warned from time to time on your talk page by multiple users because of disruptive editing. At this point, I'm just keeping on this discussion because of being extremely generous with WP:AGF, because there's no indication you'll actually engage in constructive editing. You seem to think that Wikipedia timelines are yours to reign upon, and seem to care little about the arguments at use other than those befitting your own whim.

Anything else, or can we already bring the article to the version it was before your edits? Impru20^talk 15:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I really don't know what are you up to here. Your current strategy seems to be to participate in this discussion only for as long as your edits get reverted: once they don't, you stop discussing until they do. You seem to be assuming that me not reverting your latest edits implies I accept them; I don't, I'm just stopping to avoid violating WP:EW and WP:3RR. I'll wait for a couple more days to see how this develops before reverting these edits again. If we come to that and my edits get reverted, I'll bring your behaviour to the attention of WP:ANI or whatever other venue that may be fit. Your attitude of attempting to blockade any change in this page just because you don't like it is just unacceptable and insulting. Impru20^talk 07:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Baprow: You seem to not care enough to come here to discuss, but enough to re-edit all other articles to somehow make your point here? Know that this is WP:POINT and it is disruptive. You are still making further edits to this article despite the discussion still being ongoing (you not caring to participate on it doesn't mean it has been closed). Impru20^talk 21:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Ok, so up until today no response has yet come but two edits to other articles a couple days ago, in what seemed to be a clear attempt to game the system by introducing the same changes being locked on here into other articles (diff1 diff2). Over the course of the last weeks, user Baprow has no other contributions to Wikipedia other than those of this article and the two aforementioned edits (link). Further, Baprow actively disengages from discussion once I stop reverting their edits in this article, and the few times they do engage in discussion they bring up different arguments than those that were raised earlier on to blockade this article from being consistent with all others (and based on absurd claims, i.e. that a president lasting for one week is not eligible for being shown in the timeline, or random arguments for size proportions, or that the name is not "put well" (?) diff diff). As told earlier, this is a blatant ownership behaviour directed at blocking any attempt to introduce changes to "their" earlier edits, and it's just unacceptable.

As I announced several days ago, I'm (once again) restoring the version previous to Baprow's disruption, under a two-pronged approach: firstly, I'll be restoring the size proportion and timescale to bring the chart in line to other charts for regional presidents in Spain. Then, I'll wait for a little longer to re-add rows for interim presidents, in an effort that discussion on the issue can develop with other users if possible. If not, and if the only impediment to it remains Baprow's persistence on merely not liking it, those will be re-added as well. If Baprow insists on re-starting the edit warring, I will raise the issue of Baprow's behaviour at WP:ANI or whatever venue that is deemed as appropiate, considering their actions here, their lack of any genuinely true attempt to reach a consensus on the issue, their attempts to influence this discussion's outcome by editing other articles, their own historial of disruption as noted on their own talk page by multiple other users and their failure to reply to any of the calls and petitions issued to them, both in here and in their talk page. One user just cannot pretend to hijack one page out of their own whim. I think I cannot be more transparent and sincere on the issue. Cheers. Impru20^talk 13:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

This user's accusations could well apply to himself. He intends to implement a uniformity that according to him is the only possible way, but in this wikipedia there are very different timelines. In some the full names and surnames are given, in others only the surnames or names, in some the names are in blue because they have a link, in others the names are in black because they do not have a link ... There are also different sizes and shapes . He believes that timelines should be one way and intends to impose his criteria. His willingness to come to an agreement is non-existent. He has not yielded or compromised on any point, as I have, and even the only detail that he claimed to be willing to negotiate soon became non-negotiable again (and he has never bothered that at least the name of Sánchez de León does not destroy the aesthetics of the timeline by not having a color different from the others... much talking about uniformity but then he is the first to break it when he sees fit). Frankly, arguing with someone like that makes it necessary to rest and disconnect, and I do that when I consider it appropriate.--Baprow (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Next time you do this, this or this, I'll ask for you to be blocked. You just don't come to edit other articles to game the system or make any disruptive point to support your cause in this discussion. Further, you are only editing Wikipedia whenever I take any action and in response to it. You are not even caring to bring any legitimate claim for your actions.

"He intends to implement a uniformity that according to him is the only possible way". I will again quote your own words earlier in this discussion: "there are many other tables in this and other Wikipedias". These were your exact words. You yourself used the consistency argument when you thought it benefitted you (I've been in favour of consistency since the very beginning, btw), but openly started to ignore it (or to change other articles so that you made them consistent with your own version of things) when you saw that customary practice elsewhere did not back your actions.

"He believes that timelines should be one way and intends to impose his criteria." Nope, that's what you are doing, to the point of editing other articles (most of these for the first time, btw) to impose your own version and make a point here. I have been always willing to discuss and explicitly called for you to do so, even pinging you to the discussion. You've repeteadly ignored to discuss anything, only coming here whenever your edits were reverted. You've been unable to even maintain the same arguments throughout the discussion: every new day, you bring up excuses different than those you used before.

"(and he has never bothered that at least the name of Sánchez de León does not destroy the aesthetics of the timeline by not having a color different from the others... much talking about uniformity but then he is the first to break it when he sees fit)" What does this even mean? Can you care to explain?

If you are not going to go into a constructive behaviour, let at least some other users can come and participate here. Discussing anything with you, at this point, seems like a waste of time. Impru20^talk 17:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

It's also cool that you have acknowledged yourself that all other of your edits but this one are directly related to this discussion, and also that you have removed some of the disruptive editing warnings from your talk page. Impru20^talk 17:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I have acknowledged nothing.

You yourself used the consistency argument when you thought it benefitted you. No, I was trying to expose that your eternal argument "I'm doing what Wikipedia does" was not so solid because there are the same number of thing that are not done as you said that is the corret way, but as always you turn the reality in your favor.--Baprow (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

"(and he has never bothered that at least the name of Sánchez de León does not destroy the aesthetics of the timeline by not having a color different from the others... much talking about uniformity but then he is the first to break it when he sees fit)" What does this even mean? Can you care to explain? Seriously? You are so incapable of seeing that perhaps you are not right in something you do that you are incapable of seeing aesthetic incoherence in a timeline with eight names in blue and one in black?--Baprow (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I do not see any aesthetical issue. If just because of that you call me as "incapable", then this openly goes into WP:NPA territory. Impru20^talk 17:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Incapable: unable to do or achieve (something). An appropriate definition. If you want to take it as a personal attack, that's your opinion. By the way, if you don't see anything wrong with names of one color and names of another on the same timeline, then you would be creating a new type of timeline that none of your previous examples would do. You just destroyed your own argument. Congratulations.--Baprow (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

These kind of comments are just unacceptable. Impru20^talk 20:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, your double standard.--Baprow (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

If you are just going to intervene in this discussion to throw this kind of non-sense, I please ask you to stand down and let other users (if any) to come and opine on the issue. As you will have already noticed, I raised the issue of your behaviour on the appropiate venue as repeteadly warned. Hopefully, this shall be addressed by others now. Cheers. Impru20^talk 11:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Baprow: Are you a single-purpose account? You have not edited Wikipedia for over three weeks. You have not engaged in any discussion for over three weeks. You seem to limit yourself to editing a very narrow amount of articles, and you only do so whenever I do edit this article in particular. This is disruption. I'm not going to repeat the aforementioned points above, but it's obvious you have no consensus for any of your edits and that no one else has even cared to come here to support your stance, so stop behaving like a child by (covertly) reverting my edits without any notice when I conduct those. Impru20^talk 18:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I should also note that your edits today are limited to those articles I myself have edited today previously. It is not the first time you do so, and I should warn you that this may constitute WP:HOUND. I please ask you to stop singling my edits out and reacting to them. Thanks. Impru20^talk 18:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Rules

Rules in caravan sites just being inforced now after living there for 17 years also what harm do plants do they put oxygen into our air and make the sites look much better 2A02:C7E:42F5:D500:6033:F98E:432C:C140 (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)