User talk:Gibraltarian: Difference between revisions

Hi Gibraltarian! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! , SqueakBox 15:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see any vandalism by Asterion at Gibraltar. Please can you explain your edit summary comments? Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism and take care not to make such false accusations in the future. Okay? Cheers, SqueakBox 17:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He keeps adding false allegation of ethnic cleansing, expulsion and barbarity supposedly commited by British troops. My accusations are not false. Asterion knows it.

If the whole of Gibraltar has been blocked from editing es I believe you should be takling it up with tyhe wiki foundation. Try [1], or the Spanish version, [2]. Es wiki is not within en wiki jurisdiction, nor should it be as that would imply it was a more important language, but metawiki covers all wikis of this foundation, SqueakBox 18:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't remove the copyright warning in Royal Gibraltar Police. As the warning states clearly, Please do not edit this page for the moment, and also Posting copyrighted material without the express permission of the copyright holder is a violation of applicable law and of our policy. Those who repeatedly post copyrighted material may be blocked from further editing. However, if this is in fact an infringement of copyright, we will still welcome any original contributions from you.

Best regards --Ecemaml 12:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take it easy. I'm just following the guidelines regarding vandalism alerts. First step: warn the involved wikipedian. --Ecemaml 15:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take it easy!?!?!?! GO AWAY! --Gibraltarian 15:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gibraltarian. Please do not remove the copyright violation notice from Royal Gibraltar Police whilst it is being considered. Also, you'd do well to revise our policies on civility and the three revert rule. If you continue to remove the notice you may be blocked from editing. Thanks, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in becoming involved in the conflict between the two of you. I will, however, tell you that being uncivil and violating policy is not going to help your case. There are a variety of ways in which you can resolve disputes, so the two of you should explore some of them. Most importantly, to avoid escalating the situation, remember to always remain civil and assume good faith (even if the latter is particularly difficult for you). With regards to Royal Gibraltar Police, the copy-vio notice should remain until it has been verified. It appears to me to be a violation, but I'll leave it to the regulars a Wikipedia:Copyright problems to decide. Thanks, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems urging those more familiar with that process to help expediate the resolution.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. --Gareth Hughes 23:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Spanish chap at José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero#Gibraltar and relations with the United Kingdom who keeps removing the fact that Gibraltar is a British colony. I am reverting him. I wonder what, as a Gibraltan, your thoughts on this are. There is also a dispute on the talk page Talk:José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero as to whether Spain uses British (ie international) or US spelling in schools, etc. Do you know anything about this that could shed a bit of light? Cheers, SqueakBox 18:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Dmcdevit·t 22:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gibraltarian, I've been informed of your conflict with User:Ecemaml, and I've read much of your discussion with him. Edit wars aren't productive, but if you'd like to discuss the issue further, I have posted a comment on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar, and I would appreciate it if you would respond there. Thanks. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ecemaml has posted a number of issues and given evidence for his claims on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar. Could you please review them and give your opinions? Again, I urge you to work with us on this—the best way for Gibraltar's side of the story to be heard is for you to present that perspective with references and be willing to allow both opinions in the articles in question. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 13:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see the problem from his perspective? He thinks that you have been brainwashed by Gibraltarian propoganda and are trying to create discord here on Wikipedia by insisting that your version of the story is the correct one. Personally, I have no idea who is right, and frankly, I don't really care. My interest in the subject is that the related encyclopedia articles accurately reflect the viewpoints of both sides. Arguments like this are virtually impossible to come to agreement on, and the best thing we can do instead is explain both sides without supporting either one.

You said, "I cannot be expected to spend my days trawling through evidence to refute his lies". I agree with you—I'm not asking you to attempt to refute what he is saying. I'm asking you to provide sources that support your point of view. Remember, the key is to "write about what people believe, rather than what is so". You may be right, but that doesn't change the fact that many people believe something else. As a result, a wikipedia article on the topic must include both sides, even though one of them is wrong.

I'm not going to let Ecemaml turn WP into a "Gib bashing" forum. Everything his references say that your references disagree with must be preceded by "Spanish historians say" or "the Spanish government claims". It cannot and will not be presented as fact. If you see text that you disagree with that is not preceded by such a qualifier, then by all means, mention it on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar so that we can work it out. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting changes without discussion -- Ecemaml has laid out his positions on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar, so if you have problems with his edits, mention them there before reverting! Refusing to cooperate may have negative consequences; so for your sake I urge you to respond to Ecemaml's points on the talk page. Spangineer^es (háblame) 01:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with you adding content, but you also specifically changed wording that Ecemaml has proposed and defended on the talk page. Those things should be discussed. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, but when users disagree, blind edit wars is not the answer. For example, if you have a problem with the sentence, "the Spanish government explicitly rejects the use of the term "restriction" since it usually involves a sense of condemnation and use "measures" instead", please say why on the talk page, instead of just removing it, because Ecemaml has said why he thinks it's important. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 16:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltarian, I don't understand what the problem is. Do you want to play by the rules or not? Wikipedia is a community; you can not continue making unilateral edits. If you truly want Gibraltar's perspective to be heard, stop reverting and start explaining your opinions on the talk page. Again, I'm not asking you to be friends with Ecemaml and I'm not asking you to refute everything he says—all I'm asking is that you present your opinions and give references for them on the talk page. Is that so difficult? If you're not willing to do that, we're not going to get very far. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltareño necesito tu ayuda para mantener el el status de los Territorios de las Malvinas y de Gibraltar hacia el lado Britanico un saludo.. contacta cndo puedas al usuario adriandiazlb o por correo adriandl@hotmail.co.uk

I removed the request for unprotection, but I am still considering it. I know Spangineer isn't doing the mediation anymore, but I'd still like his opinion. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the discussion with you seems to go nowhere and you keep on insulting me wherever you want, I'm stating the request for an arbitration process. Just for your information --Ecemaml 06:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're telling the truth. As far as I know, you're not blocked (see your lasts editions in [3] and [4] on December the 3rd). You can go also to the list of blocked users here and verify that you're not blocked. If you refer to the protection of es:Historia de Gibraltar, the instructions to unblock it are here. You'll notice that the procedure is rather similar to the one that is valid for en:. You're also be warned in your talk page in es: (see here). It's up to you to play by the rules or not.

On the other hand, I encourage you to reconsider your attitude and provide your evidences regarding the arbitration process that has just been opened. --Ecemaml 21:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YOU are the only proven liar here. When attempting an edit yesterday in .es, I was prevented by a nessage saying "Your IP has been blocked by Ecemaml". You know it. --Gibraltarian 08:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]