User talk:Wee Curry Monster: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:18, 29 September 2008

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

I see...

... that you've simply removed my messages, therefore, I guess my answers are not welcome. However, don't accuse me of breaking the 3RR. I did it after you did it in the same way and I'll leave for a day. I don't have anything to revert in Gibraltar. My additions are sourced, are attributed and are relevant so that I've moved then to other places in the article. The consensus discussion didn't consider the UK government position, which is relevant, so that, even so, the consensus has nothing to say in new additions (I mean, there isn't a consensus on not including such an information). And finally, don't forget to presume good faith. You haven't done it. --Ecemaml (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just report the man to 3RR, Justin. Some people need a good game of 'whack a mole' with the ban stick before they learn how to play nice with others. Can't say this improves my opinion of the Spanish Wikipedia, though on the flip side, my opinion of it can't get any lower. --Narson ~ Talk • 07:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 :Just report the man to 3RR, Justin. Some people need a good game of 'whack a mole' with the ban stick before they learn how to play nice with others. Can't say this improves my opinion of the Spanish Wikipedia, though on the flip side, my opinion of it can't get any lower. <span style="font-famiy: verdana;"> --[[User:Narson|<span style="color:#1100;">'''Narson'''</span>]] ~ [[User_talk:Narson|<span style="color:#900;">''Talk''</span>]] • </span> 07:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
-== BTW ==
-This is the "technical text" I found in the communications article:
-{{cquote|When direct dialling from Spain was introduced, Gibraltar was treated as part of the Spanish telephone numbering plan, with callers dialling 956 (the area code for the adjacent province of Cadiz) followed by the digit 7, and the subscriber’s five-digit number in Gibraltar, which could only begin with the digits 4, 5 or 7.
-Consequently, only 30,000 numbers available in Gibraltar could be dialled directly from Spain. With a population of nearly 28,000[1], this caused a shortage of new numbers that could be allocated to new telecom operators, thereby preventing deregulation of the industry as required by the European Union.
-This also affected international calls from the rest of the world, because carriers using least cost routing, especially in the US, routed calls to Gibraltar via Spain, which prevented calls dialled using the code +350 from terminating in Gibraltar. Consequently, the caller would hear a recorded announcement saying that the number dialled did not exist. Even when calls routed via Spain were allowed to terminate in Gibraltar, under the 'sender keeps all' arrangement, Telefónica in Spain was able to keep revenue from these calls, instead of paying Gibtelecom's international termination charges. Although all other countries and territories recognised the +350 dialling code, not all networks blocked calls to Gibraltar made using the Spanish code +34 9567, which allowed subscribers to call Gibraltar for the cost of a call to Spain.
-}}
-And this the text I edited:
-{{cquote|When direct dialling from Spain was introduced '''in 1984''', Gibraltar was treated as part of the Spanish telephone numbering plan, with callers dialling 956 (the area code for the adjacent province of Cadiz) followed by the digit 7 '''(9567)''', and the subscriber's five-digit number in Gibraltar, which could only begin with the digits 4, 5 or 7. '''As a result''', only 30,000 numbers available in Gibraltar could be dialled directly from Spain. '''As foreign operators could route calls to Gibraltar through Spain, due to lower tariffs, it was impossible to guarantee that a call arrived to its destination, if beyond the 30,000 allocated numbers.'''
-With a population of nearly 28,000, this caused ''that new numbers that could have been allocated, for instance, to new telecom operators, could not be reached from Spain''. This affected international calls from the rest of the world, because carriers using least cost routing, especially in the US, routed calls to Gibraltar via Spain, which prevented calls dialled using the code +350 from terminating in Gibraltar. Consequently, the caller would hear a recorded announcement saying that the number dialled did not exist. Even when calls routed via Spain were allowed to terminate in Gibraltar, because the caller used the Cádiz area code, under the 'sender keeps all' arrangement, Telefónica in Spain was able to keep revenue from these calls, instead of paying Gibtelecom's international termination charges. '''However, phone numbers in Gibraltar beginning with other digits than 4, 5 or 7, could not simply be reached if the call passed through Spain, even with the +350 dialling code.'''
-'''The Gibraltar government has called against the Spanish restrictions, and accused Spain''' of preventing deregulation of the telecommunications industry in Gibraltar as required by the European Union[2]. In 1996, two Gibraltarian telecommunication companies, Gibtel and Nynex, took up the matter with the European Commission. However, in June 2000, the Commision communicated to the United Kingdom government urging the United Kingdom and Spain to reach a bilateral agreement on the issue.[3]
-'''In November 16, 2001, as part of the resumed Brussels Process, the Spanish government offered 70,000 new numbers, but again within the Spanish telephone numbering plan. Only one week later the Spanish Telecommunications Market Commision assigned 100,000 numbers to Telefónica, for it to use them in the communications with Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar refused such a solution, since it simply aimed at the recognition of the Gibraltar dialling code.'''}}
-If you could please make it clear how I made "too technical" the original text, I'd be able to fix it? BTW, I don't see none that is too technical. On the other side, can you point out which statements are not sourced? It seems that you change your argument every time you revert, seeming that you aim actually to block the article. Best regards --[[User:Ecemaml|Ecemaml]] ([[User talk:Ecemaml|talk]]) 10:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)