User talk:Physchim62

The large wet haddock, which keeps a eye on Physchim62's administrative actions, believes that a warning about personal attacks is not in itself a personal attack under WP:NPA policy. Please calm down before leaving such messages here.

No responguis a l'insensat segons la seva ximpleria, perquè no et tornis com ell, també tu.

Respon a l'insensat segons la seva ximpleria, perquè no es pensi ser savi.

Proverbi 26, 4–5

→Archive 2005
→Archive 2006
→Archive 2007

TfD nomination of Template:Smithsonian

Template:Smithsonian has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Abu badali ^(talk) 18:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Valencia (autonomous community). For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 16:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

I assume you have had much more experience with this topics than I have. I can't speak for the rest, but I didn't sign the petition because I was waiting for you to give your opinions, both as a party and as an administrator, who, arguably, would've worked toward reaching a consensus. Maurice27 came up with sources, and even though I do not fully agree with its use (I've read it all), at least it is a source, and in the absence of any other, in my opinion, it was a valid source.

Everybody else has responded by now, but edit wars have restarted. I would have appreciated your contributions and insights within the discussion, but I assume you had a valid reason not to do it. I am open to discuss with you the possibility of working together, as admins (even if it is from different wikipedias) towards reaching a consensus, even if we both need to compromise on some areas. If both of us work together, especially given that we have different (and even opposing) points of view, and eventually reach a consensus, we might be able to bring others to accept it, and even set a precedent of good-will and hard work towards NPOV. If it fails, then I am more than willing to back you up in your request for mediation.

--the Dúnadan 17:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm considering what should be done next on each of the three points I raised, and I'm sure we can work together on these and other ameliorations. I am a little short of wikitime at the moment (I may have to urgently return to Catalonia for family reasons, among other time-shortages), but I am going to take a look at what has happened on the affected articles now and I shall be on wiki on Monday (CEST) with a few more proposals (and, I hope, a referenced article on Blaverism, fascinating subject that it is!) Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

wikimisery

Hi Physchim.

As the administrator you are, I thought of you regarding Mr. Bouvila. He is one of the worst editors I have ever seen (only second to another which I won't even mention for fear of taking him out of his self imposed retirement, you don't know him anyway...lucky you!).

I can -hardly- deal with selfrighteous nationalists who come to wikipedia to mimick the same story they are told at the local ERC, CUP, whatever club. Well, actually each time I have more and more trouble in dealing with these -to put it mildly- "editors in a rather weak reasoning", and that is why I am retreating from wikipedia, slowly but surely. However, insulting such as in [1] is probably a bit too much and I should always have some spare time to enter wikipedia and denounce it.

You have more examples of his finesse here [2]

Since you are an administrator, please tell me: why wikipedia has to deal and compromise with this kind of intellectual misery? isn't it self evident that 3.14 hours blocks won't work nor are the right answer?

Damn, they are stubbornly confiming the odd reflections made from the Nietzschean cliffs [3], aren't they?...

Mountolive

---

Hey! That's me.

Actually, my attitude towards Mountolive has a reason. Well, more than one. But here you can see few examples of how he keeps an aggressive attitude against me all the time. This, is why I acted so:

1. Here he insulted me when I was just trying to discuss an issue about the Crown of Aragon article.
2. Here, here he insulted me, and my family.
3. Here he changed "Catalan" to "Catalonian". I would like to comment three things about this: first of all, I did not write Catalonian there, it was someone else. And anyway, as you can see here, Catalonian is correct too. And finally, in addition he was not right with his revert, he stated "I think you would like to know that the adjective for Catalonia is Catalan...Jesus, gives us patience...", which is clearly sarcastic.

So all in all, I guess it is understandable that I called him "fucktard". I'm so sorry and stuff, but anyway, I still think the same of him.

By the way, as proved above, if "Catalonian" is also correct, I don't understand why do you revert my edit, Physchim.

And about the other edit this guy mentions here, it was just a joke, since the other user kept reverting the edits I did to the article, so I kept adding them. Onofre Bouvila 18:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I refer you both (myself, I'm an atheist) to the wise words at the top of my talk page. Physchim62 (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Physchim, as you can see in my talk page, there is more people ready to engage in official action agains the oversensitive guy (apparently he thinks he can say "you fucktard" to me but I can't say that he -and myself- we are not with the smartest wikipedians....and insulting his family?? I'd laugh if the accusation wasn't that grave...)

If you are not willing to promote this official scrutiny of his edits (your answer above is too cryptic for someone not that smart as myself :P), I would appreciate, for the sake of the community, that you let me know how to proceed and whom to address: it is high time for someone to come to terms with his own actions.

Thank you in advance,

Mountolive.

PS. I read somewhere that you had to come to Catalonia for urgent family reasons: I hope everything is ok. Warm regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 09:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I've seen the comment on your talk page. This was the combination of mine and his responses to your previous question. Physchim62 (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block issued. Physchim62 (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Why the hell do you block me? So the reason to block me is because I removed your "civility warning" from my talk page? Well, I use to remove or archive the old topics from my talk page, but that has nothing to do with you.
If I had been "uncivil" after you had written that in my talkpage, I could understand that you had blocked me for having broken your request of being civil. But this wasn't the case; I kept a civil attitude (I didn't even do any comment anywhere).
In addition to that, I came here and I replied this topic, so I did not ignore your warning.
So I not only fulfilled your request, but I also came here and posted here to make you sure that I had heard you.
Therefore, what's the point of blocking me? You could have blocked me for ignoring your "civility warning" and being "uncivil", but as I said I not only kept a "civil" attitude but I also came here to reply you. So then what's the point with what you did? Since when it's punished to remove a "civility warning" from one's talk page? And if it's so, why didn't you warn me that I could not remove your post from my talk page? As far as I know, one can manage one's talk page talk page however one wants. Onofre Bouvila 14:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Could you justify your block, please? Onofre Bouvila 14:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Main page images from the Commons

Hello! For {{c-uploaded}} images, there's no need to change the filename (provided that the image file itself is the same). This only breaks the link to the Commons description page. Thanks! —David Levy 19:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint: the last time I tried to do this, there seemed to be a problem of priority between the two versions, so I went for a "safe" solution this time! Physchim62 (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Capellades_(location_Anoia).png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Capellades_(location_Anoia).png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MER-C 10:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Colloque Wikipédia 2007

Hi PC, there is a short conference in Paris in October on Wikipedia and academia. Do you fancy going? It's a lot closer for you than Taipei! I'm planning on going, mainly to talk about the Wikipedia 1.0 stuff and also fact-checking/assessment (the French WP is now using the WP:Chem assessment scheme!). A lot of the 1.0 people will be there, since the CD was produced by a French publisher with French help - a veritable Entente Cordiale! It'd be great to meet up with you if you're available. Walkerma 17:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In principle, yes, but I am trying to sort our Turin as well (if that is going to be useful, don't know yet). I am not sure which country I will be living in October either, but hell, life's too short to worry about such details! Physchim62 (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If my "professional commitments" (Ha!) allow me, count me in. Physchim62 (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

NOCl is an anhydride?

Re your comment "NOCl is in no way an anhydride of any nature, and certainly not an acid anhydride)"

HCl + HONO --> ClNO + H2O

--Smokefoot 22:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but under that definition sodium chloride is an anhydride too! So I'm with you, PC! Walkerma 02:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is just one example of why the concept of "acid anhydride" in inorganic chemistry is not particularly useful. Acidic oxide is a more useful (and more rigorously defined) concept. One day (maybe) students will stop being worried when I explain that sulfurous acid does not exist... Physchim62 (talk) 08:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Benzotriazole

Hi Physchim62. After having created this (short) article, I have remarked that it is linked on one of your userpages. As I am not a native speaker and this is not my “home Wikipedia”, there might be some stylistic or other flaws in the article. It would be great, if you could quickly proofread it. Thanks. --Leyo 16:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Catalonia

Given the extremely low ratio of administrators vis-à-vis users, and in lack of any other administrator involved in the ongoing discussion, I ask you to please take the time to exercise your prerogatives as an administrator despite agreeing with Maurice27's POV (perhaps being neutral is another of my "weird ideas" of adminship). The reiterated insults, swearing and improper behavior of Maurice27 continue to go unnoticed and unpunished. --the Dúnadan 22:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm fed up with the lot of you. The editors on these pages are not interested in writing an encyclopedia, merely on scoring political points. Take the matter to ArbCom (or would you prefer that I do so?). Physchim62 (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I resent your comment. I am not Catalan, and I have no political interest whatsoever in "scoring points". And a quick review to my history and quality of contributions which include a vast array of topics will prove you otherwise. My interest in having articles substantiated in statutory and constitutional definitions is as "political" as yours in opposing them. If you with to take it to ArbCom, that would be fine with me. --the Dúnadan 15:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A one week block for Maurice27 was perhaps a strict decision. Yet, I have to say that I disagree with you in suggesting that all users involved in the "edit war" be blocked. You have to admit that no other user of the five who oppose him has resorted to abusive language, personal attacks, and no one has ever violated 3RR. Even if he is "quite a character", he is driving out otherwise good-intention editors with his attitude and the leniency he has received from administrators. --the Dúnadan 15:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

All editors in this conflict have received a large degree of discretion from me in my administrative role, yourself (and myself) included. Maurice has received multiple warnings, mostly from me (if he didn't blank his talk page so often, this would be more visible). As an editor, he should know what he is/was risking. However, controlling him seems to have gone beyond what can be reasonably imposed by admins, especially if we wish to promote (I would say institute) reasonable discussion on articles concerning the Paisos catalans. Rendez-vous at WP:RFAr? Physchim62 (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand. If you wish to request for arbitration you have my full support. --the Dúnadan 15:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and understanding: I don't see that I have much choice! I will attempt to phrase the request in such a manner as not to aggrevate the situation: I think that there are real (i.e., non-content) issues which ArbCom could usefully take a look at. Physchim62 (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Maurice27's block

While there is edit warring going on by several editors on that article, he was the only one I saw engaging in heavy personal attacks, etc. If you can provide diffs of other's doing the same, I'll deal out similar blocks. As far as DR goes, I have to say that as a member of MedCom, I see little hope for this in mediation. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you block me??

Hello? Why did you block me? Since when removing a civility warning from one's talk page is something that deserves a block? You did not even communicate my block to my talk page. I am stil waiting for a justification of your abusive attitude as admin. You not only block for no reason but you also ignore people's requests of justification! Onofre Bouvila 20:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You were blocked for repeated civility violations: if you carry on in the line you are takng, you will be blocked again. If you do not wish to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, then we shall make sure that you do not prevent others from contributing. Physchim62 (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That is absolutely false.

You posted a "civility warning" in my talk page.

That was the only time that you posted there, ever, for this issue.

My reaction to that, was to come here to ask what happened.

We discussed it here, and when the discussion ended, without any result, I removed the civility warning from my talk page, because I use to archive / remove old conversations in my talk page.

Automatically, wen you saw I had removed the civility warning, you blocked me for a 24 hour period.

Your block was absolutely illegitimate, for various reasons:

The way you did it:

1. The reason you gave to block me was: "Yes, I've seen the comment on your talk page. This was the combination of mine and his responses to your previous question.". And few minutes later, you posted "24 hour block issued".
2. All this information was posted in your own talk page, and talking to another user.
3. You did not communicate to me that you had blocked me. I did not see that you had blocked me until, few days later the block had expired, I came to your talk page, and saw that you had said that you had blocked me.
4. In addition, by not communicating me that I was blocked, you did not allow me to ask other admins to review my block.

The reasons why you did it:

1. It is not stated anywhere in this Wikipedia that an user cannot remove stuff from his talk page.
2. You neither told me not to remove that stuff.
3. I accepted and fulfilled your request of having a civil attitude. Ignoring what I had done before (which was not much), since the moment you told me that, I kept a civil attitude.
4. I also lost my time coming here to reply you, so there is no possible way to say that I ignored your request.

In all, your block was just full of irregularities. It was not a normal admin block, but rather a thoughtless decission that you took without following any kind of procedure. You just decided that I had to be blocked because you might think that removing the civility warning that you had posted in my talk page was some kind of lack of respect towards you. But it is frankly stupid to think that way, because of the reasons I've explained above.

And since you realized that you had comitted an enormous mistake, that you had used your admin powers despotically, you just repeatedly ignored the requests that I did to you in your own talk page, where I asked you why had you blocked me (this one, and this one), adding to your unjustified attitude towards me, a high grade of arrogance.

In addition, you are threatening me. Read well what I wrote:

"Hello? Why did you block me? Since when removing a civility warning from one's talk page is something that deserves a block? You did not even communicate my block to my talk page. I am stil waiting for a justification of your abusive attitude as admin. You not only block for no reason but you also ignore people's requests of justification!".

Where do you see a lack of respect here? Where do you see that I "keep" an uncivil attitude? Honestly, you are the one being uncivil: "if you carry on in the line you are takng, you will be blocked again" ... which line I am takng? And why do you threaten me? "If you do not wish to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, then we shall make sure that you do not prevent others from contributing" ... oh, "we". This sounds to me more like a street gang threatening a poor pedestrian, than an admin giving wise advices to a poor Wikipedian. Go to my user page and see the articles I've created. Isn't that a positive contribution?

Look: I am not being uncivil; it is you, the one being disrespectful with me. And I am not ignoring your requests of being civil; I am fulfilling them. And it is rather you, who are not only ignoring my requests of justification for the actions you carried out against me, but also threatening me with new repressive measures. Onofre Bouvila 16:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, hello, hello, my friend "Phys, chim, 62"... I see you are back from your lethargy, but you have dared to reply newer issues in your talk page, instead of giving me an explanation when, in fact, I am asking for it since much before these people to whom you are replying.

So, could you, please, counter-argument the issues that I exposed above?

Because otherwise, I will be morally forced to ask it again and again in your talk page, until you give me a good explanation for what I consider and have sufficiently proved that represents this abuse of power that you comitted against me. . 18:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to leave as many messages as you like. You're in a hole, and I don't see why I should stop you from digging! Physchim62 (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, with comments like this, you show that you are unable to counter my argumentation. You did not follow any kind of procedure at time to block me, and you adopted an arrogant and fascist attitude. And now, you just have no arguments to justify what you did.

If I did not have better things to do than editing Wikipedia, I would report you so you would lose your adminship and you would probably be blocked in response to your abuse of power.

But, luckily for you, I have no time to waste with this discussion.

So, in all, you are in evidence: you comitted an abuse of power and you just cannot justify what you did. Ridiculous. Simply ridiculous.

But it's not strange from you. Reading your talk page, and having seen how you have been previously enganged in personal attacks and other civility issues, what you did to me is just another step in your despotic adminship. Just another step in your evil and malignant path.

Pathetic. . 20:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Away

Hi PC, I just wanted to let you know that I'll be away from home till Friday, though I hope to be able to help again with gold book work before Friday. I've been putting together a three hour workshop on wikis, a lot of work! I thought I should mention it, so you don't think you're just talking to yourself! All the best, Walkerma 13:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have seen your abstracts, very worthy work! You're not willing to release a GFDL poster version which we could plagiarize (or translate for Paris)? ;) Physchim62 (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: RfM for Valencia (autonomous community)

Is this what you're looking for? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, thank-you very much! :) Physchim62 (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Energy (chemistry)

I notice that you have some how deleted the Energy (chemistry) article and redirected all links to it to Energy. In essence you have deleted my article. May I know, why you did so. If you wanted to add chemical energy to the energy article, you could have done so even without deleting the Energy (Chemistry article, which included much more information than that you have provided in Chemical energy. The Energy (chemistry still remains in the Energy (diambiguation) page. I think your edits are totally irrational and unfair.Hallenrm 07:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I certainly haven't deleted Energy (chemistry): it is still there, along with all your edits (see page history. You decided to remove the proposed deletion tag, as is your right, I decided that the page would be better as a redirect, as is my right. There is nothing "irrational or unfair" about it. You may feel that my edits are irrational, but then I feel that yours are! In physics, chemistry, earth sciences, cosmology, scientists are talking about the same thing when they speak of energy: to attempt to split the page like that is to deny an important scientific reality. Physchim62 (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I read the post at the help desk and would like to try to offer an observation. The Prod stated "You may remove this message if you improve the article, or if you otherwise object to deletion of the article for any reason." Hallenrm removed the prod, apparently objecting to the deletion of the article. The page then was "merged to energy" (as stated in the edit summary) 12 hours later. Per Help:Merging and moving pages, mergers typically require consensus or silence typically after five days of posting a merge notice. I think it would be appropriate to restore the Energy (chemistry) page and either list it for AfD as mentioned in the prod, propose a merge per Help:Merging and moving pages, come to an agreement between yourselves on how to proceed, or post the matter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy to see what that WikiProject suggests. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 04:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help, Jreferee, but the article is not deleted. Any user can revert my edit, that is the nature of a wiki (although I will take it to AfD if an article is placed at this name). As you mention, the prod tag says "You may remove this message if you improve the article": Hallernrm did nothing to improve the article when he/she removed the tag. As I am not allowed to re-prod an article, I took one other the other options open to me, which was to merge. Physchim62 (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Physchim62, you say "I certainly haven't deleted Energy (chemistry): it is still there, along with all your edits (see page history.". But that is a totally false statement, what is there is your edit to the Energy page under the subtitle Chemical Energy. It appears you are bent upon mischief, just to settle scores with me. By the way, Energy (disambiguation) page still has a link to Energy (Chemistry) which noew mysteriously leads to Energy page, which is grossly misleading. I do hope that you will follow the wikietiquette, if you are an admin or aspiring to become one.Hallenrm 07:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Physchim,

You say "Any user can revert my edit, that is the nature of a wiki (although I will take it to AfD if an article is placed at this name)." But I could not do it. So please revert your edit. And Then Do what You want, and in future be careful of the rules on wiki and don't try to jump in haste. I would also like to take the matter for arbitrationHallenrm 17:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to modify your above comments in the light of this edit (made just four minutes after you left the message above). If you wish to take the matter to arbitration, you will find all the necessary details at WP:RFAr. Physchim62 (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

boron trioxide

Please move this back to boron oxide. There is no BO₃ compound, other than the cell. -lysdexia 08:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:PD-Old regime Iraq

Template:PD-Old regime Iraq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Opium

Thanks for acting so quickly to resolve the status of the Opium article. I'm glad to hear that it has a chance to be A-class, so if there's anything I can do to help please let me know. Mike Serfas 15:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Matero escut.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Matero escut.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Piera (escut).gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Piera (escut).gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Bandera Sant Feliu de Codines.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bandera Sant Feliu de Codines.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Capellades (escut).gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Capellades (escut).gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Escut Sant Feliu de Codines.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Escut Sant Feliu de Codines.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

people is ready for new rounds

Hi Physchim. I know you must be busy with your "evil and malignant path" (hahaha, that guy is, I think I told you...err... should I say funny, to put it mildly?). The thing is that looks like some people in Valencian Community are tired already of calmed waters and ready for some "shake it, shake it!!" renewed episodes...I would like to hear your opinion on the "Castilian affair" before engaging in further blablabla, if I ever do at all, since these guys are well capable of tiring me to death with boredom....

Mountolive.-

Yes, well, I have been on a self-imposed holiday from participating in such debates, but the pages are still on my watchlist so I have seen that there has been some activity ;) Casa seems to thinks that two PoVs make an NPoV, but I shall hold off for the moment before diving in again (having just moved house and whatever!). Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, yes, I am very busy with my "evil and malignant path", which takes me from my flat round a selection of the 28 bars in Capellades (pop. 5302). I shall be back after the Festa Major! Physchim62 (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, between Festa Major and Major Mess in Valencian articles, I think the choice is clear! I would do the same...Anyway, if after the holidays, the post-coitum depression is so deep that you want to intervene there (if anything has happened at all, that is to say, because I am not myself delighted at the prospect of round # xxxx) then your views will be most welcome.

One advice which you must have learnt the hard way already: just say "yes" to everything Catalan nationalists say (there must be more than a few in Capellades, the CUP even got a councilor!) and then you will be a nice guy. If not, then you will incurr in an evil, malignant path, arrogant and fascist...

Have fun, mate.

Mountolive

Yes, well, the ERC lost the alcaldia in Capellades, basically because they didn't do anything for three-and-a-half years and it was a little bit too obvious when they started doing things six months before the elections! I don't expect the CiU to be any better, mind you! There is a large catalanist group here, who give great parties and so I shall heartily recommend them! All the best, Physchim62 (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't confuse CUP (Candidatures d'Unitat Popular) with CiU (Convergència i Unió). The former is some sort of "more popist than the Pope" (as we say in Spanish) latter day appearance of ERC. If ERC did little during these years, it makes sense that they suceeded in getting their -I believe single- city councilor....anyway: enjoy it!

Mountolive.

Hi Physchim. I know you are not up to discussion in Valencia now (neither am I, actually) but things are getting worse and worse with an emboldened anon user who is destroying the basic cornerstone of the consensus reached back in the day (amongst others, he is now editing "Valencian" into "Catalan", for example) based on bizarre reasons like "making it more understandable to English readers" which can't hide his obvious POV.

I would really like that you use your admin magic to check the identity of this anon (I have my suspicions...you know, months of being heavily exposed to that article can make you a bit paranoid). Whether he is a "usual suspect" who just "forgets" to register or a genuine new one, I am demanding that you block him until he shows some respect for the consensus reached and engages in serious talk page debate if he think is needed.

Please keep me posted.

Thanks! Mountolive

I'm looking into it, and you can be fairly sure that my recent edit to Valencian Community (thank God we finally got the name changed!) won't be my last for today. Physchim62 (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Mountolive, you can play to policeman dectective if you wish, but I'm not bizarre about making this topic better explained to English-speaker persons, to whom this WP is intented to be oriented. You can read a intervention of an anon who self-claims to be a British living in Valencia here and here. Of course, you have not responded to him, because only when it isn't on your interest you claim "consensus" when in fact you don't want to discuss. Benimerin. --84.120.254.73 10:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That user as explained his POV on talk page, but hasn't reverted 12 times like you. There is a little diference. --Maurice27 10:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm more boldest than this user, it's true, but I'm not a liar and angry person as you. --Benimerin - كُنْ ذكورا إذا كُنْت كذوب - 12:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You have that rare gift of trying to make your way in the world by pushing against the doors marked 'Pull'. --Maurice27 12:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The valencian flag... again...

Hey buddy, between beer and beer, would you mind taking a look at this [[4]]. This anon is becoming more and more arrogant even if proven wrong... (reminds me of some people hehehehe...). Cheers and have fun in the festa! --Maurice27 17:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Physchim, I've been also reverted:

• On article: here [5], here [6], here [7], here [8], and here [9]...
• On talk page: here [10] and here [11]. --> (because I added a template!!!!)
• Mountolive has been reverted: here [12], here [13], here [14], here [15] and here [16]

As soon as you sober back, take a look please ;)

--Maurice27 10:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I've seen and, as I said to Mountolive above, I'm looking in to it. The Valencian flag issue is complicated—although you have done a lot to simplify it with your research—but I think it can be solved by well-intended discussion. When I get a moment, I will put forward my arguments, but for the moment I've got a more serious problem to worry about! Physchim62 (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Blockage of Benimerin

I've been following the debate on both the Spanish flag and the use of Castilian as a synonym of Spanish, and offered my opinion exclusively on the latter (which happen to agree this time with Maurice27). However, I disagree with the outcome whereby you indefinitely blocked Benimerin from Wikipedia, on two grounds: (1) no case was opened at WP:SSP (or at least I couldn't found it; if there was, please direct me to it), and therefore, no opportunity for the purported sock puppet (or innocent user) to defend himself; the drastic decision of permanent blockage is, to my eyes, based on mere speculation, and (2) his contributions (exclusive to Benimerin, not to the purported puppeteer) were controversial but far from destructive. I hope you had followed the argument closely instead of basing your decision on the version of the facts that you were getting from Maurice27 and Mountoulive, or on your sympathy for their POV. --the Dúnadan 22:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Physchim? sympathy for my POV? hehehehehe you gotta be kidding! Do I have to remind you how many times I've been blocked by him? But heck! Guess I deserved it... --Maurice27 23:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sympathy for you, sympathy for your POV. You might have been blocked for your own actions, but he seems to agree with many of your POVs. In this case Benimerin seems to have been blocked not for his actions, but for his strong opposition, though never destructive, to his/your POV. I wish a WP:SSP had been opened to really prove that which he was accused for, or that his permanent blockage be reconsidered. --the Dúnadan 15:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to discover that you find his attitude with multiple reverts described here above "never destructive". --Maurice27 16:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

No need to be sorry, don't worry. Multiple reverts within a 24 hour period are a violation of WP:3RR which would merit (if that had been the case, but no case was opened there either) a temporary blockage. Since the multiple reverts were fully justified in the talk page (though you/we might not agree with the logic of the arguments or with the proof provided), they cannot be described as WP:Vandalism, but simply as part of the debate. The page should have been blocked until the debate had reached its conclusion. Even if his actions could be defined as vandalism (by stretching out the definition), vandalism merits temporary blockage unless it is reiterated, and this is not the case, unless the sock puppetry accusation is confirmed by proof and not speculation. That would bring me to my final concern, that no such case was opened at WP:SSP, and therefore, the decision was hasty. --the Dúnadan 17:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that Benimerin (talk · contribs) was blocked for being a sockpuppet of an indef-blocked user. The sockpuppetry was absolutely blatant. You are quite correct that his edits on their own and as Benimerin would not justify such a harsh measure, although they would merit several rounds with the Large Wet Haddock as a minimum measure: however there was every indication that his actions would become just as disruptive as they were when he edited as Onofre Bouvila (talk · contribs). He was already well on the way. WP:SSP exists to allow any wikipedian to report suspected sockpuppet activity: it is not a prerequisite for blocking, as is obvious by the ten day discussion period. You might also like to check WP:RFCU: the recommended action for an "obvious, disruptive sockpuppet" is "Block. No checkuser is needed". Benimerin can appeal the block on his talk page: however, I wouldn't like to count on his chances of success. As Onofre Bouvila, he has already been refused twice. Physchim62 (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I disagree with you: (1) the sockpuppetry of Benimerin was not blatant and not obvious, otherwise I would have seen it myself, and (2) his actions were not disruptive: He reverted, but provided proof of his POV. That cannot be qualified as vandalism. I have to ask you again, did you follow the argument thoroughly? --the Dúnadan 17:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Characteristics of sock puppets

Not surprisingly, sock puppet accounts usually show much greater familiarity with Wikipedia and its editing process than most newcomers. They are more likely to use edit summaries, immediately join in edit wars, or participate vocally in procedures like Articles for deletion or Requests for adminship as part of their first few edits. They are also more likely to be brand new or a single purpose account when looking at their contributions summary.

Retrieved from Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Identification and handling of suspected sock puppets

Sorry Dunadan, but I think it's you who is allowing your judgment to be clouded by the fact that this user was arguing on the same side as you in certain debates. If you wish to open a case at WP:SSP, go ahead, but frankly you will only be wasting people's time. Not only is it obvious that this account was a sock puppet account, it is also obvious who it belonged to. As the puppeteer had been indefinitely blocked for serious and repeated breaches of WP:NPA, a block which was confirmed by two other admins, the sock puppet account is also blocked indefinitely. Standard practice, as you well know. Physchim62 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Then be so kind as to illuminate me and remove the clouds. I have reviewed Onofre's contributions (I never met him) and as far as I have been able to see, he did not participate at all on the discussion of the Valencian Flag. His edits were political/ethical and related to other issues, whereas the issue of the Flag of Valencia is a matter of sources. It is not as blatant or as obvious as you want me to believe. The above quote, as you know, is a rule of thumb; many an anon participate extensively at Wikipedia before registering.

If you had followed the debate you would have noticed that he contended the consensus on two grounds (1) the legal document provided by Maurice27 explicitly states that it pertains to municipal flags; he questioned whether this legal source could be interpreted in such a way as to include the community's flag and (2) he provided pictures of hoisted flags of 2:1 proportion, thus questioning the interpretation of the legal source. Maurice27 has not provided any flags of 2:3 proportions (except folded flags whose proportion is blurred). Please forgive me but those arguments cannot be classified as disruptive. Other than your speculation of him being Onafre, the blockage is not justified.

By the way, being a new user (and since I cannot say he is the same as Onafre), why do you say that I am on the same side as him on certain debates? I might agree with his proposal, only because I have yet to see the 2:3 flag in real life. Don't you think that maybe your judgment was clouded by the fact that you disagreed with him? Don't tell me how bad Onafre was. Please illuminate me and show me how obvious it is that Onafre and Benimerin are the same user. Benimerim was not blocked for being a sockpuppet of Onafre: Benerim was blocked for being a purported and not confirmed, sockpuppet of Onafre.

--the Dúnadan 18:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Benimerin started editing as an anon shortly after Onofre Bouvila had been blocked. This (fixed) IP address had never previously been used to edit Wikipedia.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. When editors complained on my talk page, Benimerin knew exactly where to find the complaints. How would anyone know that there could be complaints on my talk page, unless they had recently been involved in disputes with me? 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.

If you do not believe that this user is Onofre Bouvila (talk · contribs), then please tell me which of the established users who contribute to Valencian topics was using this sock-puppet. All of them (with the obvious exception of Toniher (talk · contribs), who seems to be on a wikibreak) have edited since the block was imposed. In any case, and even if none of the contributors to these topics are angels, most have a little more sense and tact than Onofre Bouvila. Physchim62 (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Benimerin has now requested to be unblocked, in a certain unimitable style "Have good memory if you lie"), so the reasons behind the block will be reviewed by another admin. Dúnadan could have got a review himself, of course, at WP:SSP or WP:AN/I, although he chose not to. I consider the matter closed pending the outcome of the block review. Physchim62 (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've not requested specially to be unblocked, because I have no interest to continue editing in this Wikipedia while articles related to Valencian topics are hijacked by Maurice27 and Mountolive because political reasons. I've expressed only my disappointment to your action and I've advised you to have better behaviour. --84.120.254.73 23:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Following Wikipedia's rules, when someone disagrees with an administrator's action the first thing that a user should do is to talk directly to the administrator. That is what I did. After that, I would have gone either to WP:SSP or to WP:AN/I; not that I didn't chose to do it; I simply followed the procedure of contacting you first, and I was waiting for your explanation, which you just recently gave. You presuppose that he is a sock-puppet (not an active anon user with a dynamic non-repeating IP address), and then it is just a matter of finding a puppeteer (Onofre, Toniher... whoever). If he is indeed shown to be a sock puppet, then I apologize to you for giving you an unnecessary headache. However, I must tell you that your decision was also based on somebody else's POV (or your own POV) and assume that his edits have a "Catalanist" point of view. I fail to see how it is that a discussion over the proportions of a flag relate to a Catalanist (or anti-Catalanist) POV. Or is it simply a matter of legal sources vs. visible flags displayed in government buildings? We are not talking about two different flags, but simply proportions of visible flags vs. "legal sources" of how flags should be. Please, tell me, do Catalanist actively support the use of one proportion of a flag over the other? --the Dúnadan 20:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dúnadan, thanks a lot to your words about me, WP:ca is too lucky because having an user good-minded as you. --84.120.254.73 23:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dúnadan, the problem when you stop assuming good faith in other editors—as when you accuse me of blocking for political of PoV reasons—is that those editors tend to stop assuming good faith in you. Your actions seems designed to waste my time and to try to persuade me not to persue sock puppets of Onofre Bouvila. You don't seem to wish there to be a serious investigation—I believe that it is because you are afraid of what that would prove. Physchim62 (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: I'm not this user called "Onofre Bouvila". You're going to a very deep mistake, because the reasons you're arguing are simply casual facts. Instead to be paranoid, you should to stop the hijacking of articles related to Valencian Community by users Maurice27 and Mountolive. --84.120.254.73 10:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC) PD:"If you tell the truth, you don’t have to have a good memory", Mark Twain.

Mark Twain was quite true; however, you are twisting his quote to suggest that other userts are lying. As I said above to Dúnadan, if you are not willing to assume good faith in other users, I do not see why other users should assume good faith on your part. Physchim62 (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you please stop adding Mountolive in your accusations? He hasn't done anything but to express his ideas, just like you expressed yours... Who is then hijacking the article? The difference is that he didn't revert 12 times. --Maurice27 13:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Physchim62, either I am a terrible communicator, or you constantly misinterpret what I write. Let me be clearer for the last time:

• I do wish to have a serious investigation. That is what I asked of you from the very beginning: to open a case instead of blocking out of speculation. Didn't I say that from the very beginning, in my first comment (point number 1)? Let me cite myself, just to be clear: "no case was opened at WP:SSP (or at least I couldn't found it; if there was, please direct me to it)"
• I am not dissuading you from pursuing sock puppets, I am asking that you do so through the proper channels. Moreover, I am citing, verbatim, your reasons for blocking him: you stated that he has a "Catalanist" PoV, and that his edits were destructive. I never stopped assuming good faith from you, but when you say that a silly argument over the proportions of a flag has political motivations, then it is you who is not assuming good faith. You blocked him not by the merit of his own actions (you eventually admitted this yourself), but by the merit of the actions of Onofre: until he is confirmed to be Onofre, the blockage is unjustified; therefore it is imperative to use all means to prove that he is indeed Onofre.
• I have no problem at all if you are proven right, and if the investigation confirms your wise instincts as an administrator. In fact, I will be the first to congratulate you! I am not afraid of being shown proofs! I am not defending Benimerim hismelf as a user, but his right to defend himself within a system that presupposes innocence of all editors. If by the end of the process of investigation he is proven to be a malicious sock puppet, then by all means, I will agree with his permanent blockage, and the blockage -or at least a constant verification- of the IP address(es) he might be using, no matter how polite his most recent edit might be. However, I do have a problem when you assign political motivations to debates where there are none, and then use those as a reason to block a user withouth opening an investigation in the first place. I am terribly sorry to have wasted your time. I am also terribly sorry that you misinterpreted my petition.

--the Dúnadan 13:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, Dúnadan, it's none of your buisness. You are not an admin on English Wikipedia. If you wish to question my admin actions, you may do so, but I will ask myself why you are questioning them (just as I do, incidentally, with Mountolive and Maurice27). If you wish to open an investigation, there are lots of ways that you can do it. However, I shall continue to act in a way which I think has the support of other en: admins and of the en: Arbitration Committee, for so long as I believe that such actions still retain their support, whatever you yourself feel. Are you seriously suggesting I should act otherwise? Physchim62 (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop putting words/suggestions in my mouth, and please read what I write. As a concerned user, it is my business and my right to question the actions of any administrator, as it is the business and right of any user in this community called Wikipedia. Instead of opening a case for what I considered an inappropriate administrative action, and assuming good faith of you (but you failed to see it), I opted for the first option therein suggested: talk to the administrator so that s/he could explain her/his actions. Of course you could ask why I was questioning, and I have responded to all your questions, though you misinterpreted my answers, until I was clear enough.

Quite frankly I am frustrated and disappointed at the lack of success in using this friendly venue and with the implicit/explicit direct unconstructive criticism from your part (e.g. you are afraid of what it may prove) and phrases than instead of assuaging the debate, kindle the animosity. I am sorry to see that you cannot handle constructive criticism, neither coming from a normal user nor coming from a fellow administrator [of whatever Wikipedia] (I resent your comments on this and other debates concerning my "weird ideas" about adminship). I have never, in anyway, being aggressive, neither have I resorted to sarcasm nor to direct ad hominem attacks in addressing this issue. Whether it was out of sarcasm or out of a real concern when you asked: "are you seriously suggesting that I act otherwise?", I will offer my suggestion: be open to constructive criticism even in what you think has the support of your fellow administrators in this Wikipedia. They might give you their full support, but you might have learned, even if little, from the opinions of others who might disagree with your actions.

--the Dúnadan 00:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Man has such a predilection for abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic" - Fyodor Dostoyevsky --Maurice27 01:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Why mediation? What happened? Who's shirt is this? Why am I naked?

Hi Psych, what are we mediating at Catalonia and VC? I can't work it out from talk pages. Boynamedsue 15:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Errm, that's actually a great part of the problem! Thank-you for putting it so succinctly! My allegation (and for the moment it is only that, as it is before ArbCom) is that a certain group of editors are preventing others from editing these articles, unjustly and by means which might not really be described as WP-compatible. If ArbCom decides to take the case, it will have to try to decide whether or not I'm right (I don't envy them, but then that's why I've never put myself up for ArbCom). Why the problem has gone to ArbCom is a long story which I'm not really willing to discuss at the moment. (by the way, nice pecs...) Physchim62 (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Given his at times kinda reckless behaviour, it must be Maurice's shirt...what were you doing? why didn't you call me?? Mountolive

If it has a 2:3 Valencian flag in a promenant position, it is probably Maurice's shirt. I should wrap it around your waist to avoid getting arrested for indecent exposure. I'm sure Maurice won't mind, given the circumstances of your nakedness... Physchim62 (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The flag must at all times be treated with "dignity and respect". Regulations Regarding the Flying of the Valencian Flag, indicates the rules for the display of the flag. Official regulation states that the flag must never touch the ground or floor, be used as a table cloth or draped in front of a platform, cover a statue, plaque, cornerstone etc. at unveiling or similar ceremonies, start or finish any competition, race or similar event, be manufactured or used as underclothes, bath and floor mats or any similar demeaning application, or be used for any commercial advertising in a manner that will distort or show disrespect to the flag. This said, I won't mind too much, promise! --Maurice27 16:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Mallorca vs Majorca

(I posted this to Majorca talk, with no response.) Whether the "Requested move" being discussed is from Majorca to Mallorca or from Mallorca to Majorca isn't clear, but based on the remark under "Move done" that the move is fait accompli, the dispute seems to have been settled in favor of the -J form ("Majorca"). I strongly object to "Majorca" being used as the spelling of the primary listing. The assertion, below, that "In English the island's name is Majorca", isn't substantiated, and countervailing evidence such as an earlier observation based on Google hits isn't rebutted. Argument based on unqualified assertion, without evidence, is insulting, and presages a dim future for Wikipedia if accepted. The experience of Stemonitis suggests the J form [as most common in English]; mine suggests the LL form [as most common in English]. A few lines later, another user implicitly argues that Robert Graves preferred the "Majorca" spelling, which is relevant but not compelling by itself. Perhaps the J spelling is a British preference, rather than a widely Anglophone preponderance? Here's a short listing, somewhat random, of preferred spelling broken down by publishers and online sources: LL form: Rand McNally, Getty Thesaurus of Geographical Names, Alexandria Digital Library UCSB (University of California Santa Barbara), Google Maps, Mapquest, Lonely Planet, Rough Guide, Google hits (needs interpretation, but seems between 3:1 and 5:1 in favor of LL) J form: Meriam-Webster, Microsoft World Wide Media Exchange, Robert Graves Equivocal/unclear (depending on the meaning of the terms Standard and Conventional): United States Board on Geographic Names (BGN): Mallorca — "Standard (Spanish)"; Majorca — "Conventional (English)" Paulownia5 21:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Additionally, as mentioned by at least one other user, there's a question of phonetic representation ... if "Majorca" is used, but assuming a normal Spanish (approx. "Y") pronunciation, then German (!) phonetics/orthography are really being borrowed ... (unless one goes even farther afield to reach for an e.g. Argentine "DJ"/LL). If this is still in a state of acrimony, is there a precedent for posting both forms (Majorca and Mallorca), cross-linked so as not to imply a preference? Paulownia5 02:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's true, I only considered UK usage. There are plenty of uneducated soles in Great Britain who even pronounce it with a hard "j" sound! I think the route of the spelling come from the era of the Napoleonic Wars—the name is spelt with a "j" in French as well. I'll have another look at it in the light of suggestions that there might be different spellings in different forms of English. Physchim62 (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Interesting about the French «J», the full form being «Majorque» ... thankfully not an English J/dj but more of a zh. Paulownia5 18:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)