User talk:Cremallera/Archive I

See WP:POINT, adding disruptive edits to make a point is not constructive behaviour. Justin talk 16:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CANVAS as well, [1]. If wanted help in dispute resolution you only had to ask. Justin talk 18:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Déjalo

No hay nada que hacer. Un grupo de editores tiene secuestrado los artículos relacionados con Gibraltar. Son muchos, organizados, hablan mejor inglés, y jamás te dejarán introducir un cambio contrario a sus intereses. No te quemes --Ecemaml (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I got blocked several times when dealing with them. So I'm not keen on dealing with the same guys again. Furthermore, it'd took too many time and time is the only thing I don't have now. There have been many times trying to make Gibraltar-related articles not being POV and it's been useless. Sorry again. --Ecemaml (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ecemaml got blocked for edit warring and got more leeway than most do, I could have reported him for a WP:3RR violation but chose not to (though funnily enough leapt at the chance to report me when I accidentally over stepped the mark - shame I'd realised and self-reverted). Neither was he interested in making articles NPOV, rather he seemed more interested in inserting a pro-Spanish slant.

As regards your comments on progress, its only starting to make progress when you've actually tried to engage with other editors. Think about that. Justin talk 14:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cremallera. Just in case you find Ecemaml's words hard to believe, I confirm that it is a complete waste of time trying to neutralise any Gibraltar related article. In fact, it is impossible even to add any bit of information that the group of users who literally own the article may dislike. I have been watching the development of the article for a long time now and there has been a large number of users who have tried it before unsuccessfully. So my advice is to stay away from them and instead join Wikipedia Spanish to extend and improve these articles, where you will have a much more pleasurable experience of wikpedia. Best regards, --Té y kriptonita (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, it doesn't matter how many sources you provide. But look at it from this angle: the article is so blatantly biased that anyone with less than the average IQ or a little understanding of English would realised it, which shows what kind of organization is draining our economy. On the other hand, it is a pitty that the English wikipedia is discredited in this way, but there are so many articles that it is vey difficult to control all of them and, unfortunately, for the rest of the world Gibraltar is only an insignificant rock not worth it of investing time and efforts to write a quality article about it. --Té y kriptonita (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What a crock, the article is not biased in the slightest, what you mean is that editors have kept the article balanced and not allowed you to slant the article toward a pro-Spanish viewpoint. And fact tags added outside of policy and for POV reasons can and will be removed. Justin talk 09:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that I share everything that Té & Kriptonita has said, but Gibraltar articles clearly aren't neutral. At least, they lack the Spanish POV as you recognise by "not allowing the pro-Spanish viewpoint" (even if it is sourced and has been included -ephemerally- by many editors). That is: you include the legitimate Gibraltarian viewpoint and sistematically remove the Spanish one. You might not share it, but it exists and should be represented as such. Cremallera (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

:-D Justin is very funny. You can take a look at any of my editions in Gibraltar-related articles (see History of Gibraltar for instance). You can verify what Spanish propaganda means for him. Don't laugh too much. --Ecemaml (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Neverending Story

No the Spanish POV is represented and is not excluded. What is not acceptable is removing legitimately sourced material because you feel it shows Spain in a bad light. Note there was no attempt in the edit to influence readers along a particular line, it was for the reader to draw their own conclusions. However, you would suppress that information in an attempt to whitewash the Spanish Government stance. Similarly you're deliberately adding quotes out of context to twist the words into a meaning they never had. Justin talk 10:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Straits of Gibraltar is already on my watch list. Notice, that I didn't revert you. Justin talk 10:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Justin! I haven't removed anything. I just added a verification failed tag onto a dead link and added (yes, added) 2 references to the article, quoting the exact wording chosen by both the Gibraltarian Officials & the European Court of Justice in a declaration that backed Britain's position over the Tireless case (not the Spanish one). I really don't see how could you consider that I "attempted to whitewash the Spanish Government stance". Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't insult my intelligence there are reams of text devoted to removing any reference to nuclear vessels at Rota. The Spanish Government in that respect was being unequivocably hypocritical and you did attempt to expunge material in that respect. And the comment taken out of context is to infer that the UK and Gibraltar Government did not put in place any radiological safeguards, because they didn't have to; the situation is completely different. The dead link included an access date and simply because links are now dead do not make them invalid as a source if they are properly dated. The wayback machine can be used to confirm the material. Justin talk 10:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't intend to insult your intelligence, don't be so cocky, Justin. The nuclear vessels at Rota bit was totally unreferenced for 3 months (enough time to find a reference, don't ya think?). WP:VERIFY clearly states that editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. You may not like it, but that's how it is. Cremallera (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That my compromise edit (a fully sourced edit) was not put into the article for 3 months was entirely down to your refusal to agree to it. The fact that edit remained in the article was entirely down to your pig-headed refusal to accept the compromise proposed; so forgive me if I take your feigned concern for wiki policies with a rather large pinch of salt. You may not like it, but that's how it is. Justin talk 11:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Because your compromise edit still included the nuclear vessels thing, while lacking a reference for it. Please, reread the discussion, and let's not begin another here to no tangible gain. See you. Cremallera (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It was supported by multiple citations, claiming white is black with the light off doesn't change it. Justin talk

Hi there! Long time no see... Not even one citation supported that submarine vessels are being repaired at Rota in recent times (that is, the last 30 years). And your inability to find a reference to back it up in 3 months says it all. Cheers, Justin. Cremallera (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You are being frankly ridiculous my compromise edit did not refer to the repair of nuclear vessels. If you have to delibertaely distort my contributions the my assumption of good faith is finally expended. It was fully supported by sources. You can deny it till you're blue in the face but again, frankly it makes you look like an utter dick. Congratulations I had pegged you as a reasonable contributor, you've managed to convince me otherwise. Goodbye. Justin talk 13:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again! Look, other wikipedia articles which don't refer just incidentally to the issue but directly, like the U.S. 6th Fleet article state: "The first incarnation of Task Force 64 consisted of nuclear-powered submarines armed with long-range strategic missiles (SSBN). Until the end of the 1970s these ships were homeported in Naval Station Rota, Spain. The mission was strategic deterrence. It is extremely unlikely that any SSBNs are actually still assigned or operate with CNE/C6F in the Mediterranean". I don't need to be blue in the face, Justin.

The edit that you proposed mentioned the nuclear vessels: "The Government of Gibraltar has accused Spain of using this incident as an excuse for creating a dispute over Gibraltar, since there are more severe environmental problems in the Bay and the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is actually used to provide support for units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet, including nuclear powered vessels, without any complaint". See here.

The edit that you finally made don't, and that's why I haven't objected to it. And thanks for calling me "utter dick", that's always a desirable behaviour from an adult person. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, the article most certainly does now and its sourced. And there is more than one type of nuclear submarine I was not simply talking about boomers. And I was referring to a wiki essay, the clue was the wiki link. Thanks for the "fat bitch" comment, always a "desirable behaviour from an adult person". Once again you have to raise the temperature again without reason and without productivity. Justin talk 14:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

First "utter dick" and now "fat bitch"? What are you teaching in Gibraltarian schools those days? Your pretty article now says "and the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is actually used to provide support to units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet without any complaint. The U.S. Sixth Fleet includes nuclear vessels such as aircraft carriers of the Nimitz class as part of CTF-60 and nuclear submarines as part of CTF-64. USN vessels also routinely carry nuclear weapons and official US policy is to neither confirm nor deny their presence". Of course this is factually true, but those nuclear vessels aren't repaired at Rota and you know it, so you keep inserting misleading statements into articles to enforce your POV. U.S. 6th Fleet comprises conventional vessels also, but those dock at Gibraltar, I guess.

It's like saying that Gibraltar is an Off-shore Financial Centre. And Off-shore Financial Centres are used by mafia and terrorist networks. And hoping that the reader will think "therefore, Gibraltar is used to finance organised crime and terrorism". That would be a fallacy, just like your addition to the article.

See you, Justin. Cremallera (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

See [2] and to quote "Pa tí la perra gorda." how original. And by the way you could very well say that but in the interests of WP:NPOV you would have to point out that Spanish allegations have been thoroughly investigated by financial authorities and been found to be utterly without foundation. Hasn't stopped the Spanish Government persisting with those untrue allegations has it? That is in no way equivalent to the USN navy ships that routinely include nuclear weapons as part of their arsenal using Rota, or the fact that the 6th fleet uses Rota. Those happen to be true. And I am perfectly within my rights to remove foul language from MY TALK PAGE, do not revert again. Justin talk 15:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What you deem "foul language" just happens to be a Spanish proverb. On the other hand, you have to provide a source when you state "USN navy ships that routinely include nuclear weapons as part of their arsenal using Rota". I will repeat again what I've said to you previously: the source you used to defend your POV stated that "the base is able to provide invaluable support to both US sixth Fleet units (...)", and since the US 6th fleet comprises nuclear vessels, therefore you infer that nuclear vessels dock there, which is a fallacy. Cheers, Justin. Cremallera (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

My, as you know, limited Spanish translates that as "you fat bitch" and, again as you know, a source has been provided. There is no logical fallacy, you're attempting to use a sophism to expunge comments you dislike. Now you can repeat the same illogical argument ad nauseum, it doesn't change the fact the edit is properly sourced and you're censoring comments for POV reasons. Justin talk 16:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a logical fallacy. A source was needed. Narson provided it in 1 hour. I wasn't asking the impossible, was I? Cremallera (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A source was already provided, you simply chose to reject it. I see no further point in trying to communicate with you, you're being obstructive for no reason. Justin talk 17:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That has been nice, Justin, very nice. I'd preffer to discuss with a wall. Cheers Cremallera (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

PS: Dear reader, if you are really interested in this discussion, there is some more here although it's been erased, which is fine, albeit rearranging my own user talk page without changing a single comma doesn't seem to be. Cremallera (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-arranging a talk page is frowned upon, it changes the narrative of dicussions and gives a misleading picture. Deleting comments is a perfectly acceptable alternative. If you wish to try and infer there is any more than that, well thats entirely down to you. It is however noticeable you always select the path that creates the most tension. Bye for now, I can't say its been pleasant, because it wasn't. Justin talk 13:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither I am really pleased. Inconsistencies aside, what I really don't like is you not telling me in the first place. See you. Cremallera (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So asking someone else to explain it, as you interpret anything I say in the most negative light possible is, well interpreted in a negative light. Fabulous. Justin talk 09:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Justin! I don't think you are such an evil person, really! But just like you perceive my comments as "the path that creates the most tension", I read yours in the same way. But, hey, we've got an edit in progress. Let's focus on it. Have a nice day (sincerely). Cremallera (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page comments in Spanish

I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Pfainuk talk 00:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on History of Gibraltar. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Justin talk 15:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I appear to be engaged in an edit war in your opinion. It's quite funny how the editor who is discussing with me and also reverting my edits warns me about it. Cremallera (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Cremallera, I guess that you've meet the usual guys. You will simply loose any "battle" you engage in. They are more and therefore, the 3RR never applies to them. I don't dare to take a look at History of Gibraltar, but possibly, for instance, the mention to the interpretation of the demolition of La Linea fortifications during the Peninsular Was has disappeared. The problem is that fighting for neutralizing Gibraltar-related articles is a time-consuminig activity and I'm currently deeply involved in the Spanish Wikipedia so it would be difficult to help. Sorry to say that. It's a pity that Gibraltar-related articles are a black-spot in the POV principles of Wikipedia, but it's so. If you're being harassed as it seems, I suggest you to escalate the problem up to the arbitration commitee. Unfortunately, it's a lengthy path, since all the steps must be followed. Good luck. --Ecemaml (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Creo que voy a echarte una mano

BTW, a "perra chica" was a 0.10 pesetas coin, wasn't it? (in the same way, a "perra gorda" was 0.25). Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

XD Yes (0,05 & 0,10 pesetas respectively). I've already explained to them, and provided a link to the .es wikipedia article. I think they have a sufficient grasp of the Spanish language to understand the article and won't think anymore that I 've called them "fat bitches". Unimportant communication problems. Cheers Cremallera (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hola Cremallera, welcome back to the playground. Hope it ends better that in the previous time. --Ecemaml (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You'll see that things are more or less the same :-) --Ecemaml (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hail, my sockpuppet

Hola sockpuppet mío ;-)

May I suggest to ask for a verification just to show how ridiculous are Gibnews statements? It's up to you. If you don't wish, I can do it. On the other hand, I've noticed that your English is rather better than mine (not that difficult, I must admit :-)). Can you please, if you have time, have a look at Diego de Astorga y Céspedes? I've just created it, but possibly it can be enhanced from a grammar and style point of view? Best regards and thank you for your warning --Ecemaml (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Gracias, campeón!!! :-)

Just consider that, if your English is supposedly not that good, how could be mine? --Ecemaml (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Català? Well, I can read it quite well thanks to... my translations from viquipèdia to the Spanish Wikipedia. However, I can't speak or, worse, write it at all :-( --Ecemaml (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your warning. Fortunately, it's game was rather obvious and no further reversions from me were needed. When you have a time, please, copyedit Juan Romero de Figueroa. You did it quite well with Astorga y Céspedes. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Cremallera, thank you for your warning but I just wanted to make it clear that Gibraltar (as any dependent territory, regardless of its degree of self-government) has no territorial waters. The territorial waters are of the sovereign state they depend on. You're right in the sense that the redaction could have been more precise: "Gibraltar, as any other dependent territory, is not a subject of the Public International Law". Therefore, it cannot sign international treaties, as for example the Convention of the Sea, that defines territorial waters. On the other hand, are you meaning that you're not a sensible guy ;-)? Best regards and thank you again --Ecemaml (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, when you have some time... could you have also a look at Gonzalo Piña Ludueña? Thank you --Ecemaml (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Your efforts with my poorly written articles are really appreciated :-) Muchas gracias --Ecemaml (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem :-) I didn't understand it in the wrong way. I know that my English, though more or less understandable, is much enhanceable. I'm only used to write and read technical stuff and therefore, my abilities in writing more literary texts are not that good. A careful copyediting of my articles was something I've been always looking for. Again, gracias por todo. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC) PS: I see that my previous message lacks a smiley :-) I'm including one with this edition.

Absent

Hola Cremallera, I'll be off for one or two days... familiar emergency. A wikibreak is unfortunately needed. Hope everything will be OK while off. Un abrazo --Ecemaml (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources and quotations

Hola Cremallera, I'm beginning to organize some of my material. As a first step, I'm including some interesting quotations from my sources in User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar. Enjoy them and, if you need further information about a specific issue, I'll provide the info in there. Un abrazo --Ecemaml (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hola, I've included a new quotation in User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar#San Roque --Ecemaml (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. However, I don't know how the process will be run and who will launch the RFC? Any clue? --Ecemaml (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy

Just a quick note but if you're going to make notes like this one [3], its common courtesy to let the others know on the talk page. Further, we're not content to have the article locked and have been actively trying to resolve the problem. I do note we got further when the edit wars were removed as a destructive distraction. Justin talk 23:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You're quite correct I should have said something. My apologies. Justin talk 00:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For info, I have preferred it when we can discuss constructively, seems like a lot of silly comments have been directed at each other for so long that its difficult to just stop. I am trying. Justin talk 00:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Gibraltar mediation

Thank you for your message. I did see your post in the ANI thread and meant to respond, but it slipped my mind while I was dealing with other stuff. Sorry about that. What I would have explained was that protection policy insists that when admins protect an article, we do so on the current version. If we changed the article we'd be implying one version was preferred over another, and that's not helpful for obvious reasons including our staying neutral in the dispute. I realise one article was protected in a version you object to, but the other was protected in your version so I concluded it all evens out (see m:The Wrong Version for a humorous - if sarcastic - take on this).

Regarding your request to comment in the mediation process, unfortunately I don't have the time at present to get more involved. I am happy to answer any requests for admin action, such as unprotecting the pages or making consensus edits to them, and of course if I see what I believe to be personal attacks, incivility or edit-warring I will sanction the accounts involved (as would any uninvolved admin). If the mediation seems to have stalled your best recourse might be to try some of the other measures on WP:DR (such as request for comment, formal mediation or as a last resort, Arbcom). However, out of courtesy you should probably discuss this with Atama first to see if they agree with your assessment. EyeSerene^talk 12:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, any or all of those will do (I've been called much worse here!) EyeSerene^talk 22:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC

I've started an RFC on Gibraltar related articles here [4]. Justin talk 21:04, 19 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)

Felices fiestas

Hola Cremallera, muchas gracias por las felicitaciones. Ya queda poquito para que el nuevo miembro de la familia aparezca por aquí. Supongo que tendré menos tiempo para perderlo en Wikipedia :-)

Muchas gracias también por el apoyo y por la compañía. Se hace duro estar solo por tierras extrañas. Un abrazo muy fuerte para ti y para los tuyos. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC) PS: sorry, but I don't want to use English for wishing Merry Christmas (translation here)

Feliz Navidad to you too!!

Have a very good time these days, compañero de fatigas! ...and enjoy the moratorium! Like they say, "paz en la tierra a los hombres de buena voluntad." Un fuerte abrazo. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

December 7

I see my suggestion of Dec. 7 fell on deaf ears... I would also suggest you look into the past activities of JCRB, starting by asking Narson or perhaps Pfainuk.

I am just tired of the article being a constant battleground, wikipedia ceased being fun a long time ago. It also detracts from the work I'd like to do. Justin talk 09:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page Archiving

• You seem to have moved your talk page to the article space This is my Talk Page. You can leave your message here. That is not an article, so it does not belong in the article space: rather it should be at User talk:Cremallera. I have filed RM for it, and have moved your archive back to the user talk space. Pfainuk talk 22:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oh, I should probably also say: I've tagged all the redirects created in the article space for speedy deletion. Anything without a prefix (such as Talk:, User: or User talk:) is treated as an article, and your talk page obviously shouldn't be treated as an article. Pfainuk talk 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It was a mess. Cremallera (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)