User talk:Ecemaml/Archive 2

Bay of Gibraltar
You're correct, apologies. In English you can use Bay of XXX or XXX Bay almost interchangeably. I thought it was a language confusion and unnecessary. Justin talk 23:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Olivenza
Hello Ecemaml. I have reverted some of your recent edits to Olivenza as they caused a huge POv shift of the article. The Falkland Islands model does not apply for this article, it is much more in line with the WP:NPOV applied for articles such as Kosovo, where international law cannot clearly determine current status. The article on Olivenza must neither state that it is a Spanish nor a Portuguese territory, just its present de facto situation and claims. Thank you. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  21:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I thought your edits made for a much better article, this issue has been around for a long time and hopefully we can now see it sorted. Where exactly in our policies such a pov position as "must neither state that it is a Spanish nor a Portuguese territory" is beyond me. Keep up the good work. I suggest you put your well considered arguments on Husond's talk page at Talk:Olivenza and we can see if we can build a consensus; your arguments make sense to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Prompt ass licking as usual, SqueakBox. Ecemaml, it is not me who needs a better argument, it is you. WP:NPOV has a very simple and straightforward application here- the article cannot say "Olivenza is Spanish, period" because it is well referenced that some countries consider it de jure Portuguese. This is verifiable, and therefore WP:NPOV determines the neutral tone of the article. And as you can see in Kosovo, the fact that it is de facto independent (as Olivenza is de facto Spanish), you may have noticed that its first paragraph does not start with "Kosovo is an independent country". Furthermore, you are an administrator on the Spanish Wikipedia, and you probably have similar policies there. But then on the other hand, SqueakBox has been on this Wikipedia for a long time and still doesn't seem to have a good grasp on policies. Regards, Hús  ö  nd  01:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Request
Please read this. Thank you. --Conquistador (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

History of Gibraltar
Hola. Soy novato en esto de la Wikipedia, pero no pude evitar comentar esto en la discusión de la página de historia de Gibraltar. La verdad es que los editores hacen oídos sordos a lo que les indico. Incluyo el link a la discusión, que es larga y, ocasionalmente, en un tono nada constructivo por ninguna de las partes implicadas, debo reconocer.

Dado mi desconocimiento acerca de como funciona la enciclopedia y visto el dominio del inglés del que haces gala exactamente en la misma página de discusión; así como teniendo en cuenta el hecho de que los editores ya te conozcan y tú les conozcas a ellos, me he decidido a pedirte consejo al respecto. Una "third opinion", como se indica en cierta página de política de la Wikipedia, más que nada para saber si lo que pido a los mentados editores es razonable.

Lo que les solicito es una referencia para cierta frase que han tenido a bien incluir en el artículo. ¿Qué opinas? Lamento las molestias, y un saludo.Cremallera (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Te has leído el debate? Parece (sólo parece), que hay avances. Algo muy reciente, aunque llevo casi 2 meses en ello. Gracias. Cremallera (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You had "más razón que un santo". Best regards! Cremallera (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the welcoming. I've had some very busy months. So have you, por lo que puedo ver. I'm glad to see you active. Cheers.Cremallera (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please explain me...
...why did you delete a sourced fact ?. Please do it at the talk page. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Adela Pla Pastor
Hello Ecemaml, regarding your change on that page I would say that Minister meaning appointed government official would be a better translation of the original Spanish "consellera" than councillor. The latter I'd usually understand to be a member of a municipal council or similar body. This source uses the term Minister in relation to Andalucia although another source uses "adviser." As I'll likely be creating more article on Spanish MPs it's important that I'm clear on this. Thanks Valenciano (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:REFUND request
I've restored your user page and removed the speedy tag. Cheers! -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  14:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

History of Argentina
Thanks for your intervention but it doesn't seem to have cooled the ardour of our revisionist colleagues. Does this mean you're editing Wikipedia again? I see you've restored your user page. Justin talk 15:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back!!
Hombre!! Qué alegría!!

Thanks a lot for your intervention (it gets a bit lonely sometimes at the Gibraltar related articles...)

Espero que te hayas recuperado.

Un strong abrazo. --Imalbornoz (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar
You're welcome to make additions, however, please take note of the talk page discussion first. Details have been placed in another article. A summary is appropriate here. Justin talk 09:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there we disagree, I feel his edit is one sided, mine is more compact and even handed. My comments are on the talk page.  Justin talk 09:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, all of us have an opinion. However, Wikipedia guidelines and policies deal with proper sources and state no original investigation, to help us to get rid of opinions. The edition by Albornoz is balanced and, more precisely, sourced. The one talking about "fear of reprisals" is not sourced, and therefore, according to ours (mine and yours and every wikipedian) policies dismissable (no mention to talk about murder of sailors and not about what caused it, looting, rapes and desecrations; especially when it is sourced). See you in the discussion page. --Ecemaml (talk) 11:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My edit is also sourced, we are not required to repeat sources verbatim. Otherwise it would be impossible to write an article without breaching copyright.  I fundamentally disagree that listing atrocities in an overview article is helpful - especially when its one sided.  Neither is it balanced, his comments in the talk page reflect that.  Justin talk 12:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect sourced interpretations are not being selectively removed, sourced interpretations are being selectively added and in a one sided manner I might add. Thats what I object to.  Again my summary listed inappropriate behaviour on one side, reprisals on the other but as a summary didn't need to list either.  That is appropriate for an overview article.  And if you want to bring up the English behaviour at Cadiz, an English editor might wish to bring Philip II of Spain and the persecution of English protestants.  You see how one man's atrocity is merely a response to their enemies.  Is the article improved at the end of the day?  Justin talk 13:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you've offered to provide Albornoz with sources. Presumably you'll be happy to provide references and sources for Spanish atrocities during the take over of Gibraltar? Seeing as it appears to be a mission to list atrocities by both sides. Justin talk 20:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep Bloody Mary at the behest of Philip II, her husband. You see how you omitted that part?  I am btw Catholic - did we assume otherwise?  You seem to have failed to note that wasn't the point.  Spanish/English history is replete with atrocities on both sides, does a summary need a detailed list of crimes on one article?  Because at what point do you stop listing them, you wish to list Cadiz, what happened before Cadiz?  Take the point yet?
 * And being truthful I seriously doubt Albornoz understands how to collaborate. He seems to engineer confrontations, then steps back pretending to be reasonable.  I suppose he think thats a negotiating tactic but its blatantly obvious and none too subtle.  Its just a pain.
 * Anyway good night, you take care. Justin talk 21:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Evil Spanish Kings? Well I could just mention the Spanish Inquisition but then no one expects the Spanish Inquistion. Just a comment, did you notice that of all the Spanish sources you mentioned, none mentioned the murders and descreation of the mortal remains. Equally I note that when Albornoz chose to revert, neither did he.

Equally by the way, no one is saying that material shouldn't be mentioned, quite the converse. Everyone has said, even Gibnews, that it belongs in the History article.

And if you wish to find George Hills obituary see. Don't know if he was a close friend of Franco as claimed but he did have exclusive access to Franco. He also appears to excuse Franco of responsibility for Guernica. Justin talk 20:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Err no, the very sources you've supplied, do mention the murder and the manner of the disposal of the bodies as an issue. So in the interests of NPOV they should be mentioned.  Otherwise that does rather beg the question why you'd suppress that information, it does of course lead to a suspicion of bias does it not? Justin talk 22:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ecemaml. I have just logged in WP and seen your messages and your recent edit. I have taken a quick look at the material, and it looks very promising (I will take a careful look at it tomorrow). Regarding your edit... (oops!! I just went to the article to check it and saw that Justin has just reversed your edit!)


 * To the point: I see you have taken out unverifiable material out of Justin's edit (not one source even implies that villagers left for fear of reprisals, even with a different wording). I agree. Also, I think it would be better to qualify the behaviour of the troops. It was not just ANY behaviour, like "shouting a lot" or "getting drunk" or "insulting people": it specifically included things that made people want to leave their hometown. And there are sources that explain this behaviour included rapes, lootings and desecrations. Unless Justin proposes a better edit (not just reverts to a previous one) I think it would be better to stick to the current one. What do you think?


 * Ooopss!!! (I just had an edit conflict here: I am sorry, most of this comment was written as Justin was doing the same, so maybe some of it does not apply). Answering to Justin: The current edit includes verifiable terrible atrocities by Spaniards (murdering people is terrible enough, without the need to include unsourced mentions to "desecrating their bodies") and by the invaders (rapes, desecrations and lootings, which are not as terrible as murderings, I think). Anyway it should not be an "atrocities contest" just an relation of relevant and verifiable facts. Maybe mediation would be the best option to help us agree what is relevant and verifiable.


 * I think I should go on in the discussion page of the article :)--Imalbornoz (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You know what if the English had murdered Spaniards and flung their bodies into cess pits you'd be screaming that it must be included in the article. You're just suppressing material you don't like.  It shouldn't be an atrocities contest - THAT IS THE VERY POINT I'M MAKING.  But that's exactly what you're making it with an insistance on a one sided edit.  Here we go again, no one agrees with your edit in this article, everyone agrees it belongs in the History of Gibraltar, but no you insist it has to be your way.  Mediation you have no interest in mediation, you just insist on having your own way.  Justin talk 23:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews.org
For info, gibnews.org is not Gibnews' site, its a commercial news site. Not sure what you're aiming at with your comment about the Fletcher report? Justin talk 12:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah OK, you didn't explain that too well and gibnews.org is the cited source. No worries.  Justin talk 12:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Uiquipèdia
Can you see this biased and bad article? I not speak english; I can't to argue here. Thanks. Ferbr1 (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

MedCab - Capture of Gibraltar
I have listed a mediation case here. You can take a look and participate if you want. --Imalbornoz (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar mediation
Hello Ecemaml, I don't know if you are back from your break but if you are, I'm going to try to see if another attempt at mediation will help at the Gibraltar talk page. If you will be available for the mediation and wish to participate please let me know either at my talk page or the talk page of the article. Thank you. --  At am a  頭 00:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

San Roque
Just because a fact is mentioned in a book doesn't necessarily mean that it is of relevance to an encyclopedic article. It merits inclusion in the San Roque article but not necessarily in the Gibraltar article. Do you really have to reduce everything to butting heads all the fucking time? Justin talk 23:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the appeal to stop reducing everything to butting heads fell on deaf ears, much as my attempt to bring to your attention the talk page discussion the very first time we met.  Everyone is not like User:Gibraltarian, so don't treat everyone the same.  Just because it is in a source doesn't mean its necessarily relevant to an article. But in the end its an utterly ridiculous thing to quarrel about so I won't indulge you.  I've self-reverted, already had done so before your self-justifying diatribe on my talk page.  If you truly set out to improve the encylopedia, you'll think about its relevance.  Good night.  Justin talk 23:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

PS Direct speech is not necessarily offensive where I come from.

Hills
Just out of curiousity but seeing as you appear to be an admirer of Hills, what is your opinion of Hill's biography of Franco? I am in particular thinking of the fact that Hills appears to absolve Franco of responsibility for Guernica. Justin talk 11:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I can say I wasn't expecting your to go on about Gibraltar. I was actually asking a straight question about your opinion of Hill's biography of Franco that was all.  My only reservations about Hill stems from that.  Again I don't object to putting that material in the history of Gibraltar page, I just ask that a consensus edit is agreed first.  Justin talk 23:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Really, so the British didn't intervene in the Spanish civil war, apparently because they were racist? I've heard everything now.  Justin talk 23:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you find it so hard to use the talk page to discuss an edit before adding it to an article? Is that really too much to ask? I have to say my opinion of you based on our first interaction wasn't high but I was grateful for you intervention on es.wikipedia. I had begun to think I was mistaken but the recent behaviour on Gibraltar has lead me to suspect that you and Imalbornoz were co-ordinating off-wiki and that lead to my suspicion of Meat Puppets.

Look I will make an offer to you, work together on the talk page to achieve a consensus piece of text for the article that satisfies everyone. I'll remove my comments on talk, draw a line under the past and work together for the future.

What do you say? Justin talk 14:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit and is especially useful when reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.  Sandstein  21:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Economy of Gibraltar
Actually Gibnews has found the authorisation to reproduce that material so the copyright "violation" notice will shortly be removed. And remind me again who it was said that the nationality of sources didn't matter? Justin talk 10:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, you insist that we use the Spanish Government source that a spin doctor would be proud of but I'm allegedly the one peddling propaganda. Thank you so much for explaining that one to me, it was shall we say, enlightening.  Justin talk 14:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Already removed, now that the report summary is in the article, as permission to use it was filed. The summary was only ever intended to be temporary.  In case you hadn't noticed running off to report people ain't my style; remember I didn't report you when you breached 3RR.  I would have preferred to work with you, you choose to make it a conflict. I've come to the conclusion that its waste of my time and effort to fight with you, so I'm simply not going to do it anymore.  IF you choose to continue with a confrontation its going to be very one sided.  Your choice.   In that vein, this will be my last message on your talk page, please extend me the same courtesy.
 * In parting, for information, those racist Brits you despise, well they gave a home for my grandfather and his young daughter (my mum) when they fled Franco's Spain. There were about 3000 Spaniards in Britain who fled persecution under Franco.  Apparently as of last year that entitles me to a Spanish passport. un abrazo.  Justin talk 23:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Disputed beginning of the English control over Gibraltar
Hola Ecemaml,

I've seen that the first paragraph about the disputed beginning of English rule was introduced sometime in November 2005 during some discussion with -according to what I've researched- sockpuppeteer Gibraltarian. Currently there are two full paragraphs, which to me seem a bit too much, but I don't know exactly why they are there. What was the reason for that first paragraph? Would it be better if we just summarised it?

Also, recently I have realised in the recent discussion about the capture that Gibraltar did not "de iure" enter English rule until 1713 with the Treaty of Utrecht. Until then -and until a few years later- it was officially considered a garrison "in The Kingdom of Spain". Shouldn't the British period in the article begin after Utrecht?

Thanks for your opinion.

Un fuerte abrazo. --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually there are more than two paragraphs (they looked like two in my navigator until I copied and pasted them), which are the following:


 * "The exact beginning of the English/British control of Gibraltar is hard to determine. From the eighteenth century, Spanish sources reported that immediately after the takeover of the city, Sir George Rooke, the British admiral, on his own initiative caused the British flag to be hoisted, and took possession of the Rock in name of Queen Anne, whose government ratified the occupation. On the other hand, even the British or the Gibraltarians sometimes date the beginning of British sovereignty in 1704 (for instance, in its speech at the United Nations in 1994, the Gibraltar Chief Minister at the time, Joe Bossano, stated that Gibraltar has been a British colony ever since it was taken by Britain in 1704[8]). Also, some British sources have accounted the flag story (He [Rooke] had the Spanish flag hauled down and the English flag hoisted in its stead;[9] Rooke's men quickly raised the British flag ... and Rooke claimed the Rock in the name of Queen Anne;[5] or Sir George Rooke, the British admiral, on his own responsibility caused the British flag to be hoisted, and took possession in name of Queen Anne, whose government ratified the occupation[10]).


 * "However, it is claimed by present-day historians, both Spanish and British, that this version is apocryphal since no contemporary source accounts it. Isidro Sepúlveda,[11] William Jackson[12] and George Hills[13] explicitly refute it (Sepúlveda points out that if such a fact had actually happened, it would have caused a big crisis in the Alliance supporting the Archduke Charles; George Hills explains that the story was first accounted by the Marquis of San Felipe, who wrote his book "Comentarios de la guerra de España e historia de su rey Phelipe V el animoso" in 1725, more than twenty years after the fact; the marquis was not an eye-witness and cannot be considered as a reliable source for the facts that took place in Gibraltar in 1704. As Hills concludes: "The flag myth ... may perhaps be allowed now to disappear from Anglo-Spanish polemics. On the one side it has been used to support a claim to the Rock 'by right of conquest'; on the other to ... pour on Britain obloquy for perfidy"[13]).
 * "What does seem nowadays proved is that the British troops who had landed on the South Mole area raised their flag to signal their presence to the ships, and avoid being fired upon by their own side.
 * "However, whatever the exact events of the time, Gibraltar ceased being under the rule of Philip V of Spain in 1704. A statue to Sir George Rooke was erected in 2004 as part of the tercentenery celebrations."


 * These paragraphs (in my understanding) look like they are trying to explain that the beginning of British rule in Gibraltar is not totally clear and that, in any case, Gib cannot be called "British" until 1713. On the other hand, they kind of get in the way when trying to read chronologically the succession of events, and most of their conclusions are already incorporated in the article (although the Spanish period ends in 1704 -something I do not agree with- the British period does not begin until 1713). Therefore, I would think that the current version of the article would not suffer at all if the paragraphs were taken to another article, leaving just a link like "(see Start of British rule in Gibraltar)". But I don't know if the paragraphs cover some specific issues with more relevance than I have inferred. What do you think? --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * ¡Muy interesante! Most of all, the visit of Charles III (it's funny that the death of one of the leaders of Polish government in exile is mentioned but not that Gibraltar was the first Spanish land where he was recognized as King, after Gib was taken by the English & Dutch precisely with that objective in mind -supposedly).
 * Regarding the disputed date of first British rule, I think that the article as is does not support the Spanish myth that Rooke took Gibraltar in the name of Queen Anne (it says "The Governor Diego de Salinas surrendered the town to Prince George of Hesse, who took it in the name of Archduke, as Charles III, king of Castile and Aragon."
 * I think that we have two options (besides the current version):
 * Treat the "Rooke claiming Gib for Queen Anne Theory" like some minority theory (which it is) and just mention:
 * "1704 4 August - The Governor Diego de Salinas surrendered the town to Prince George of Hesse, who took it in the name of the Archduke, as Charles III, king of Castile and Aragon, thus keeping it under Spanish sovereignity (some minority sources have supported the theory that Rooke hoisted the English flag in order to claim the place for Queen Anne, although this is refuted by most current day Historians, see Capture of Gibraltar: The English Flag Incident)." Or something like that.
 * Have a longer explanation:
 * "Hesse and Rooke claimed the village in the name of Charles of Haubsburg, the pretender to the throne of Spain, and therefore it was kept still under Spanish sovereignity, according to most current day British and Spanish Historians. A few minority Spanish and British sources, since the 18th century, have supported the theory that Rooke hoisted the English flag in order to claim the town in the name of Queen Anne, although this is not reported by any contemporary sources and does not fit with the political situation within the Alliance supporting the Haubsburg candidate." (see "Capture of Gibraltar: The English Flag Incident]]."
 * What do you think? Maybe we should take this to the article talk page. --Imalbornoz (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My talk page
I will not ask again, please stay off my talk page. Justin talk 12:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry & Protection of Gibraltar-related articles
Hi there. Seemingly, | Gibraltar-| related articles have been protected as of today because of alleged edit-warring. Here's the section on the | Administrator's noticeboard (number 25).

We've been accused by Gibnews of being sockpuppets as well, so by leaving this caveat here I apparently do suffer from some kind of personality disorder, and I am talking to myself. Whatever. I thought I should inform you anyway. Cheers.Cremallera (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Buenas. Well, not that I don't like the idea but actually that's it! I don't really feel like proving my innocence.
 * About my english... it is not really that good, but I see that Imalbornoz has corrected Diego de Astorga y Céspedes' article already, so I've just made some minor style tweaks (which can be wrong, so check it out). Hasta pronto!Cremallera (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I almost forget it, the article states that Diego de Astorga died in 1727 and 1734. It is either a miracle or a lapsus :) Cremallera (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your english is quite good! And I see that you speak castellano and català as well, so pots estar content... Cheers!Cremallera (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just guessing :) as one of the references in Diego de Astorga's article is in catalan. I have the same problem with french, though. Anyway, congrats on the article. I've found it very interesting! El Transparente is absurdly beautiful! Hasta más ver (muy pronto, aventuro).Cremallera (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I am back, quite soon, as I forecasted :) . You might be interested in | this. Dunno about ya' but, surprisingly, I am not annoyed, I am just amused. CheersCremallera (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, providently. I took the issue to the Administrators' Noticeboard and it was adressed by Elen of the Roads. I wasn't aware that Gibnews intended to delete other articles, though. I'll take a look at Juan Romero's article later (by the way, do you know why he didn't bear his parents surnames?). Keep it up! And, please, don't provoke Gibnews with assertions on the like of "Gibraltar does not exist from the Public International Law point of view", which are inaccurate and, more importantly, counterproductive. You are the sensible person here. Cheers!Cremallera (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Muy buenas. I've tried my best copyediting Gonzalo Piña Ludueña and Juan Romero's articles, although I think that the latter is still vastly ameliorable. See you soon! Cremallera (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * XD It wasn't my intention to imply that your articles were poorly written, but that I'll devote more time to Juan Romero's article, as I'm still not done with it. Sorry, I should've been more careful chosing words: I do really appreciate your efforts. Writing articles is what this enciclopedia is all about. Salud! Cremallera (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Advice
Sorry, we just had a major holiday here in the US and I was on an unexpected Wikibreak for a couple of days. I've seen editors request Checkuser against themselves before and it is almost always rejected. As it says in WP:CHECK: "Some wikis allow an editor's IPs to be checked upon his or her request if, for example, there is a need to provide evidence of innocence against a sockpuppet allegation; note, however, that requesting a checkuser in these circumstances is sometimes part of the attempt to disrupt. Such requests are typically declined on the English Wikipedia." I've even been accused of being a sockpuppet before, and was part of an investigation. In my case it was from an editor who I'd accused of using sockpuppets, and the accusation was only retaliation, and a pretty ridiculous one (one of my supposed sockpuppets was someone I had earlier that day reported for edit-warring). The editor that accused me was later indefinitely blocked when CU confirmed that they were using socks, the CU for me was cleared. My advice to you is to ask people to open a case at WP:SPI or stop the personal attacks. I myself have asked people to not throw around sockpuppet accusations but I think it's falling on deaf ears. --  At am a  頭 17:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Un abrazo
¡Claro! Espero que todo vaya lo mejor posible. ¡Cuidate mucho! Cremallera (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Is everything alright? Un abrazo, Cremallera (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to hear that! Disfrutad del puente de la Constitución :) (si os dejan). Saludos. Cremallera (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sorry
No worries, I have a wife and daughter and I've been through all that before. :) I hope everything is okay. --  At am a  頭 07:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Extensive quotes
Hi. A contributor has raised a question about the appropriateness of User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar under English Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline at my talk page, and I'm afraid that I believe that the page may be a problem.

As I explained to the contributor there, while English Wikipedia has developed policies against the fair use allowance of images outside of article space, a different standard does exists for text. We frequently discuss the meaning of quotations on article talk pages and other project spaces. I use them all the time in demonstrating copyright concerns. They are also typically permitted for "decorative" purposes, so long as very brief. I have never seen anyone object to a brief quote from a song on a userpage or from a favorite poem or book. I think the community view is that these kinds of uses are harmless, and so long as the material is brief I suspect that they probably are.

But at User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar you have multiple paragraphs of presumably copyrighted text that do not seem to serve any of the purposes of fair use in the United States. I'm afraid that this does not accord with the usage at WP:NFC, and it is not brief enough to be presumptively harmless, the way two lines from a pop song would likely be. I'm not sure what your intention is for that page, but I would hope that you intend to do something with it soon...to abbreviate the non-free content in accordance with NFC and incorporate it in some transformative way. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for assuming good faith in return. :) When you have more time later today, it might be a good idea to put a short note at the top of that quote page explaining its purpose, which can help clarify any fair use concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Only reason for raising it with Moonriddengirl was to check whether there was an issue first, if I raised it I kind of expect I'd have been accused of trying to suppress something. Again please do not post on my talk page.  Justin talk 08:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

←I think that the note should help. Please remember to clean up after it when the quotes are no longer actively needed either by blanking the page or requesting deletion (db-u1 ought to do it). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: A big thank you
Not a problem, I see Justin has tidied it a little more since. I'll add infoboxes in a while.

I wouldn't say your English is awful, as I wish my French/Italian/Maltese was as good as that. If you don't mind, I'd be grateful if you could notify me of any new Gibraltar-related articles you might be working on at any given time. This way I can try to help as soon as possible rather than just stumbling upon by chance.

I didn't know those defunct newspapers even existed. Are you planning on starting articles for the others listed in the navbox you also created? Would be great to see it complete! Regards,--Gibmetal 77 talk 18:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You might also be interested in starting El Faro de Gibraltar (entirely in Spanish) and 7 Days (partly in Spanish) if you have the time... Of course, I'd give you a hand where possible.


 * As for the other two articles, I also find them interesting topics. Though I think the former should be titled something like Effects of the Spanish Civil War in Gibraltar, as the war didn't actually take place in Gibraltar. Spanish language in Gibraltar will be of particular interest to me. I believe it should be coupled at some point with an article on English language in Gibraltar (not to be confused with Gibraltarian English). There might even be scope for other separate XX language in Gibraltar articles (Arabic is the first that comes to mind) in the future. Kind regards,--Gibmetal 77 talk 23:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As I'm unfamiliar with the topic in question (hence me saying "something like Effects of the Spanish Civil War in Gibraltar"), I may be unable to provide the most apt title. However, History of Gibraltar during the Spanish Civil War may be a good start. Anyway, you could start the article in question in your userspace and we can decide on the title at a later date depending on the content. How do you feel about that?


 * I'll take a better look at the article on the political party later tonight. --Gibmetal 77 talk 12:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources and quotations
Muchas gracias! They're very interesting.

I am happy that the discussion has gone more rational during the last days. Let's see what happens in the next ones. Anything that you need, tell me. I've been a bit away from wikipedia these days, but I've been trying to participate as much as I can -I don't have that much time available between my job, some other issues I have in my hands at the moment and my own two small children (my wife is "righter que un santo" when she complains about my dedicating too much time in front of my computer). I hope everything goes well these days with your own.

Un fuerte abrazo. --Imalbornoz (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quotations. I think they may be useful in the incoming RFC. Saludos. Cremallera (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE
I trust I won't have to ask again. Justin talk 17:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I love paradoxes so much! Cremallera (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: RFC in Gibraltar
Anyone can set it up. In fact, the people who have been regular editors to the article are the best ones to put forth the arguments, you are all much more knowledgeable than me about it (I admittedly knew nothing about Gibraltar before I volunteered for the mediation aside from knowing where it was on a map). But I'll start the structure of the RfC right now, I know the basic point well enough for that. --  At am a  頭 16:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Issue
I used to do a lot of translating some time ago and I think it's about time I started some again. Así que mándamelo, sería un placer : ). I just ask you to please bare with me as I'll do it as and when I find time (unfortunately I always seem to be tied up with something or other). I don't have a problem with you sending it to me via email (you'll find a link to it on the Toolbox on the left of this page), however, I must admit I check my flickr account much more often than my email!

As for the little help with the Party for the Autonomy of Gibraltar, not a problem! Regards, --Gibmetal 77 talk 23:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries, I hope he gets better soon. I'll try to look at the Marquisate article later on. Thanks, the whole of Gibraltar went crazy when she was crowned! : ) --Gibmetal 77 talk 12:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits
Ecemaml, you have marked a couple of edits lately a minor (including reversions and major talk page contributions. Minor edits are for little things like typo correction etc. Thank you. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 17:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I notice that you are still marking edits as minor - and also that most of your edits in the past seem to be marked as minor. Are your preferences set to automatically mark all edits as minor?  If so, it may be a good idea to switch that setting off.  I don't know the rule on es.wiki, but on the English Wikipeda the "minor" flag implies a very small change that is not conceivably controversial.  WP:MINOR gives examples - "typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearrangement of text without modification of content, etc.".  A revert is almost by definition not a minor change.  Thanks, Pfainuk talk 19:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * On a similar note, please don't forget to leave an edit summary. RedCoat10  •  talk  19:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC
I've started an RFC on Gibraltar related articles here. This isn't an invitation to post on my talk page. Justin talk 21:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Kaiane Aldorino
Hi, I think you've confused me with Gibnews who mentioned he'd taken around 150 photos of Miss World's homecoming. However, I did take a fair few myself but I'm afraid I have none of Mr. Caruana as he only attended the airport and the Rock Hotel, where I didn't attend. Regards, --Gibmetal 77 talk 00:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: Disuted Status
I'd suggest collapsing what went before and starting a new section, yes. Though try to, obviously, avoid commenting on editors or making deliberate pokes at people. To be honest, I'd suggest leaving it for a few days, until boxing day or so, just to let tensions simmer down. If everyone stopped editing and came back to it with a fresh summary, it might make people feel a bit less under attack. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 13:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

¡Feliz navidad!
Felices fiestas, campeón. To you, your partner and current/incoming offspring! I thought that this was in order after all the vinegar we've been drinking (and dishing out). Lo dicho, ¡a pasarlo bien (y sé bueno)! See you soon. --Cremallera (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
This being the season of good will, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Justin talk 23:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd wish to do the same, but as long as I'm not "invited" to post in your talk page, it won't be :-( --Ecemaml (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was declaring a Christmas Truce. Un abrazo.  Justin talk 23:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Feliz Navidad!!
Disfruta mucho de las fiestas and have a wonderful New Year! Y.. que aproveches bien la calma antes de la tormenta... (me refiero a lo que estáis esperando en casa, no seas mal pensado!). Un fuerte abrazo. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Merry Christmas
It's not a problem. It's been "pissing" it down over here for the past few days.

El Faro was a free newspaper, but now that you mention I don't recall seeing any copies since they reported the MV Fedra incident which was well over a year ago...

Feliz Navidad y Próspero Año Nuevo a ti y a tu familia. --Gibmetal 77 talk 23:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)