User talk:Ecemaml/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:34, 3 December 2005

¡Bienvenidos!

Saludos Ecemaml! My name's Nathaniel, but I go by the username Spangineer around here. I hope you enjoy editing wikipedia and that you stick around. If you have any questions about anything related to wikipedia, just let me know – go to my talk page, hit the plus sign (+) next to "edit this page" at the top and leave me a note. You can sign your name after you're done by typing ~~~~. A few links you might find useful include: Tutorial, Manual of Style, Community Portal, Policy Library and perhaps most importantly, the Sandbox, where you can just play around and try different things. Have a great day, and again, si tienes alguna pregunta, ¡dime! Happy editing! --Spangineer ∞ 20:00, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Portal:Spain

Hola Ecemam. Can you please help maintaining Portal:Spain. I created it a couple of weeks ago and asked for help to keep it up to date. I just don't want to see it deleted for not being maintained for a long time. Saludos. -- Svest 18:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up} [reply]

Drop your obsession

Drop your ridiculous obsession with me. Grow up.

Cree el ladrón... --Ecemaml 17:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please go and get knotted. Do not bother to send me any more messages about this, as I shall ignore you. And don't you dare even imply that I am a thief again. --Gibraltarian 15:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

... que todos son de su condición (Spanish proverb, meaning that some people assign to other guys his/her own defects, problems or obsessions) --Ecemaml 15:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not assigning anything. You are an obsessive bigot. Fact.--Gibraltarian 13:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Royal Gibraltar Police

I've restored the copyvio notice and have left a note on Gibraltrian's talk page. If the edit war continues, I might protect the article.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User Gibraltarian

Short of actually assisting (I'm busy, sorry), I can direct you Wikipedia:Resolving disputes where you should find ideas on how to procede. If immediate assistance is required, please see the Administrators' Notice Board for Incidents. Sorry again, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

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. I know you reported Gibraltarian's 3RRs, but I'm not going to discriminate between the two edit warriors. It is always bad. Please take the time you now have off to read WP:DR. Dmcdevit·t 22:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar

Hi Ecemaml, thanks for letting me know about this. I'm not terribly familiar with the dispute, but it sounds like it's the prototype nationalist conflict. If we have to protect the page(s) in order to force compromise wording we can do that, but let me recommend something else first. I'd suggest starting new sections on the talk pages of all the articles that you have problems with and specifically stating each problem with the text. That will allow Gibraltarian to argue with you, and if he doesn't object, we can implement the changes and see what happens. Sound good? Saludos --Spangineer^es (háblame) 13:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ecemaml, I've posted a comment on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar. I've looked through the history of the articles in question and looked at what was getting reverted, but in the interest of openness and thoroughness, I'd appreciate it if you would copy and paste the changes you'd like to make onto that talk page, so that they can be discussed. If there are no objections, then they can be added to the article in a day or two. Thanks! --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, discussing everything on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar will make life easier for all of us. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 21:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I haven't been too active in this debate lately, but I've been pretty busy with real life. User:Gibraltarian hasn't given too much input, and until he does, we're not going to get very far. I've protected to page to keep things from escalating further, and I've again asked Gibraltarian to comment. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't have History of Gibraltar on my watchlist. I'll let another administrator deal with the situation just so we get another opinion on the matter. --Spangineer 16:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bloqueo

Me he encontrado con que al intentar editar en la wiki española aparece un mensaje que dice que he sido bloqueado por Ecemaml por vandalismo. No cuadra con nada que yo sepa y he intentado seguir la recomendación: contactar. Compruebo que el bloqueo no me deja contactar. Entiendo que pueden pasar dos meses sin que nadie se entere. Es posible que alguno de los sectarios con que me he tropezado últimamente me haya acusado de vandalismo, pero basta con ver los historiales, y estoy seguro de que no responderías a una acusación sin comprobarla. ¿Usurpación de tu personalidad por un hacker? Lo he intentado con mi vieja identidad (pedí cambio de nombre) y pasa lo mismo. ¿Semejanza de IPs?es:Usuario:LP 1:03 1 de noviembre de 2005

Disputed status of Gibraltar

When someone protects a page, they are not taking a stand on any issues. I'm not involved, so I can't enforce no personal attacks. I'm just involved in protecting/unprotecting the page. That is all. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand your point, but you aren't understanding mine. The protection page is for protection requests, not edit warring or anything else. That's why typically, when it turns into edit warring or personal attacks, we just delete the request since it's been fulfilled. But since people kept at it, I recreated it as a placeholder for awhile. I don't know where the "free" attacks come in since I removed the page. Keep the edit warring to the talk page of the article. It wasn't me shirking responsibility. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

Yeah, I think it's time for arbitration. To start that, head over to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and follow the instructions below the table of contents. The involved parties would be yourself and Gibraltarian. Let Gibraltarian know that you're opening the case by putting a note on his talk page. You should mention me in the "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" section, just so the arbitrators know that other people have been involved, and you might mention that the request for comment didn't get any response. Once Arbcom accepts your request (which may be at least a few days), I'll post a "Statement from outside party". Your statement should tell how you feel Gibraltarian has broken Wikipedia policy (3RR, NPOV, no personal attacks, whatever), and be sure to include "diffs" (that is, links such as this one) to back yourself up. The diffs can be to show comments in the edit summary (as with the one I just linked to) or to show actual talk page comments by Gibraltarian (or yourself, if you feel that evidence of your behavior would help the case). Remember that arbitrators aren't interested in reading the whole talk page at this point; they just want to see quick and simple examples of policy being broken and of a serious dispute existing.

Of course, any questions, be sure to let me know. Sorry this whole process has taken so long. I had great hopes that we might be able to avoid this last step, but I guess my mediating abilities aren't yet at the level at which they need to be :). --Spangineer^es (háblame) 02:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add that make sure this is on his user conduct, because the arbcom usually does not take content disputes. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; I'll keep my eye on it. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please

Do not remove comments on the requests for protection page. It is a page run by administrators. Even if your reasons are valid, it's not a correct thing to do. I am going to remove the request since it was rejected. Next time though, do not remove other people's comments. If we consider it a personal attack, we'll remove the request like I'm doing here. Our job, not yours. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just felt like I had to warn you about it. I don't disagree with you about his attacks. Like I said on your page though, make sure the request on arbcom is about conduct. I know. I've had 3 cases with them (I'm an admin...we get into alot of arbcoms), so I know. Looking at it, it looks like you have a good start. If you need any help (with formatting and process), let me know. I'd be glad to help. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ONly thing I could recommend would be to take out the proposed changes you want to see. You can do that later. The request on RfAr is exactly that...a request. No reason to get so much into details. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, I never mentioned the process to you :) Basically you put a request in...the arbcom votes on whether to take the case. If they do, then they will open a case page like the one here. It has the basics on it. You then present evidence. So what you are doing right now is just doing the request. Look at the link I just gave you and look at the statements. That's what you want to do. No details...just the basic principles of the case. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 07:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well you didn't know the process. :) We all start from somewhere. :) Like I said, make the request just a simple paragraph or two with your complaints...reduce the POV complaint and the other stuff into a sentence or two each. I hope I'm making sense. :) From what I saw, you have a pretty good case, especially on the NPOV stuff. Arbcom doesn't look too highly on POV pushers.--Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look. MUCH better. :) Yep that's what you want. Right now it's just a request. It takes 3 admins to get the case heard. I'm pretty sure you'll get that. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if they don't take the case, nothing further will happen, but...since this is a long standing dispute and both dmcdevit and I urged the arbys to take the case...and since POV disputes is the main thing they do, I think they'll take it. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they do all of that themselves. They will open a general page like this along with a workshop page, an evidence page and a decision page. Any evidence you have will go on the evidence page. If you look at the main Request for Arbitration page, on the right, you will see sections for evidence, voting and closing. Once your case is "live", it will show up under evidence, probably as Gibralatarian. Once you see it there, click on his name and it will open to the page where you can give evidence. I would watchlist this page. It shows the format that you will use when you give evidence. If you have any other questions, let me know. If you need help in presenting the evidence once the case goes live, let me know. I can help out. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution is really the only thing that might include anything remotely like what you are talking about. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 17:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ACB/ASOBAL

Pues eso,que son creados por mi y por lo tanto no hace falta apoyo de la acb ni de la asobal. Saludos.

Pongo lo de Asobal.es y acb.com por dar a la gente una referencia de elegancia hombre.

No pasa nada hombre, no te comportes como un espia que no voy a ir a la carcel.

Gibraltarian

GET LOST. DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN UNDER ANY PRETEXT. YOU BEHAVIOUR IS BENEATH CONTEMPT. GO AWAY! --Gibraltarian 17:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 No pasa nada hombre, no te comportes como un espia que no voy a ir a la carcel.
+===Gibraltarian===
+GET LOST. DO NOT CONTACT ME AGAIN UNDER ANY PRETEXT. YOU BEHAVIOUR IS BENEATH CONTEMPT. GO AWAY!
+--[[User:Gibraltarian|Gibraltarian]] 17:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)