Contents

User talk:Ecemaml/Archive 3

No problem. The first one is of the General Elliot Memorial at the Gibraltar Botanic Gardens. There's a mini section in the Gardens' article about it - I'm off to a family lunch now so if you could add it to the article that would be great!

The second one is of a short tunnel above Camp Bay. It's a one-way road from Rosia Bay to Europa Point. I hope that helps... A comer más pavo ahora! --Gibmetal 77^talk 12:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for uploading those to Commons. I try to do so every so often too. The painted car was an exceptionaly great find!

I've had a look and none of those categorised as Flora in Gibraltar are of the Botanic Gardens. I created a category for the Royal Gibraltar Regiment as I saw there was a need for it. Regards --Gibmetal 77^talk 22:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im not going to look back at what has occured, as I say, treating this as tabula rasa. If there is something you feel should be added, feel free to drop it onto my page and I'll put it up. If you have an issue with what has aready gone up, feel free to discuss on my talk page. Just remember, try to keep it on content, not editors. As I will remind anyone who speaks to me. I am eager for us to achieve a resolution as, when you strip away the disagreements between editors, the problems are small in number. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a mediator, just someone who wants to see the discussion progress rather than circle. Unfortunatly, that has failed due to certain reasons. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ecemaml, thank you for your opinion about the map. I know that I would not to write in Spanish in English wikipedia, I apologize, but a commentary as big as the one that I am going to write it would take me hours to translate decently to the English language.

Antes de todo, voy a comentar que el asunto de los colores surgió de un debate de varios meses hará poco más de un año por incluir Portugal en el mapa del imperio español. Precisamente con varios colores no ha habido desde entonces querella alguna respecto a la presencia de los territorios portugueses en el mapa del imperio español. Lo que siempre ha habido es una continua reticencia de la supuesta incomprensibilidad de un mapa con más de dos colores, cosa que jamás he podido entender, porque precisamente los mapas históricos tienen variedad de colores. Dicho esto, voy a proceder a responder a los puntos que me has citado.

• Respecto a Austria. Con el reinado de Felipe II tenemos un sistema polisinodial de administración del gobierno de la Monarquía. A través de ese Consejos se gestionaban entre otras cosas los territorios de la Monarquía, y sobre todos ellos estaba el Consejo de Estado, que hacía la gestión global. El sistema polisinodial era compatible (más o menos) con el respeto al gobierno local del territorio. Ahora bien, con Carlos I la cosa cambia: por ejemplo, los territorios de los Países Bajos y Borgoña, eran más o menos independientes unos respecto de otros hasta que en la Transacción de Augsburgo (1548) y la Pragmática Sanción (1549) formaron una entidad política, sin embargo no hay reastro de gestión española de esos territorios, lo mismo se puede decir de los territorios de Austria. A la muerte de Maximiliano, Austria se conviertió en un condominio de sus nietos Carlos y Fernando, algo por cierto habitual en sus antecesores austríacos. En 1521, Carlos renunció en su hermano esos territorios. [1] En los años 1519-21, no existe rastro de presencia administrativa de la Monarquía española en Austria, sencillamente porque ésta aún no existía, además las Cortes de Santiago de Compostela-La Coruña evidencian la no disposición castellana a los proyectos europeos del emperador electo. Otro tanto se puede decir de Milán cuando el ducado revierte en el Emperador en 1535, y como Emperador, y no como rey de Castilla, se lo otorga a su hijo Felipe en 1540. Por tanto no está incluida Austria en el mapa sencilamente porque entre 1519-21, no existe una administración española dirigiendo ese territorio. El contrario tampoco existe, es decir, que España fuera una parte del Imperio, como tampoco el reino de Sicilia en época de Federico II o el reino de Hungría en época de Segismundo.

• Respecto de la república de Siena, he estado rastreando y he presentado referencias página de discusión de Spanish Empire.

• Lo de los Países Bajos no lo he entendido bien, creo haberle puesto la máxima extensión con la frontera de la paz de Cambray (1529). Las pérdidas territoriales a lo largo del siglo XVII no están reflejadas ya que de todas maneras, la totalidad se perdió antes del tratado de Utrecht, una parte conquistada por las tropas aliadas al Archiduque y la otra cedida al elector desposeído de Baviera Maximiliano II.

• Lo de Menorca es interesante, efectivamente, fue perdida en el tratado de Utrecht (incluso antes), pero como es un actual territorio español, entonces se debería colocar en doble color.

Con lo que termino de momento, y si no hay problema razonable sobre Siena, me pondré manos a la obra. Muchas gracias por el interés y recibe un saludo. Trasamundo (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feliz año nuevo. I have seen your last commentaries and I will answer you briefly.

• In the treaties of peace relative to the Spanish Succession War, he treaty of Rastatt was between the King of France and the Emperor, whereas the treaty of Baden was between the King of France and the Empire in its totality, [2] both treaties are very similar, simply the treaty of Baden corrects a bit that of Rastatt. The agreement was done with France because the emperor Charles VI still was claiming the throne of Spain (until 1725), therefore there is no a treaty of peace with the King of Spain because Charles VI acknowledged himself as the legitimate King of Spain at that time, and the quote to Baden is justified because the article XIX[3] (in both treaties) grants the Spanish Netherlands to the House of Austria.

• With regard to the north of Africa, I did not remember to check the question of Oran and Mazalquivir, nor in that of Tunis and The Goleta. Since the overextend sector of the Iberian peninsula is somehow spacious, the only thing that I ideate is that the same dot be used for a leyend that could be Oran and Mazalquivir (with double colour), and the other dot for the legend Tunis and La Goleta, and this way two close dots are not superposed. In other places, as the Persian Gulf, I have left only the Portuguese most emphasized forts by the references, because all of them do not fit in the zone at all.

Best regards. Trasamundo (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OnJanuary 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Giovanni Battista Calvi, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I nominated the article to appear in the Did You Know section of the Main Page. Unfortunately it was a last minute entry (you have 5 days to nominate it since the article was created or expanded) as I submitted the nomination just before the 5 days lapsed and then forgot to advise you that I had! If you'd like your future articles to be eligible for nomination, try to make them more than 1,500 characters long before releasing them from your user space. That way it gives people more time to think of a hook to put forward for approval. --Gibmetal 77^talk 00:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. ¡Feliz y próspero año nuevo! --Gibmetal 77^talk 00:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Fernando castiella.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. RedCoat10 • talk 20:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

es:Valle de Villaverde contains the following sentence:『A principios de los años 90 la actual corporación del PRC (en aquel momento agrupación independiente) pidió públicamente pertenecer al País Vasco, llegando a solicitar el actual alcalde (Pedro Luis María Llaguno) audiencia con el rey para tratar el tema.』Perhaps I don't understand corporación in this context, and was hoping you would. In any case, unless I wholly misunderstand, it is a remarkable statement without a citation: it seems to be saying that a group that currently constitutes the PRC in the municipality—that is, a Cantabrian regionalist party—at one time wanted to meld the enclave into the surrounding Basque region. If I have understood correctly, that seems remarkable enough to require a citation. - Jmabel | Talk 23:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I'll see what I can find. I know that other name (already created a redirect in en-wiki) but didn't realize it was that recent. - Jmabel | Talk 23:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• For the en-wiki article, I found something citable from 1987 that makes the same general point. If it turns out that what is in es-wiki is citable, though, please do let me know. - Jmabel | Talk 00:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi, well job with the disambiguation in the english and spanish wiki. i'll use the same model in the french article. Olecrab (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not badly named as it accurately reflects the name of a trade union that merged with the TGWU in 1963. The Gibraltar Confederation of Labour, which is a different organisation, also merged with the TGWU in the same year.

This is part of a comprehensive and accurate list of organisations that merged with the TGWU (which is now part of the largest trade union in the UK), and is historically accurate. If it is deleted then the links that are made to it claiming to be an accurate list of merged unions will not be correct. The TGWU, to which this article is linked, is a major trade union in the UK with a long history of merging with other unions and to have an accurate record of this list of mergers is useful both historically and academically.

Some considerable effort had gone into establishing an accurate list of mergers and the fact that the same author create the two articles your refer to within six minutes simply reflects that fact that all the merged union were post up at the same time.

If you look at List of TGWU amalgamations you will see that what you are proposing to delete is part of this information and will destroy this as an accurate records of events. Many of the entries in this list will be stubs because of the lack of information on the unions. I would certainly hope it is not arbitrarily deleted. Dave Smith (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take the hint, you are not welcome on my talk page.

I don't understand this comment. All I was doing was reply to a message you left on my page :-( Dave Smith (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE

It will be deleted without being read. Justin talk 23:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work! I'm afraid to say there will be more to come, but I think you've earned a break for now : )

Yes go for it, but maybe to shorten it a little just link it as:

• Gibraltar City Hall (images available)

I agree. It's something I've been wanting to sort out for ages but I don't know how to and never got round to asking anyone... It should help maintain the articles if done properly. Regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 23:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for the large request but as I've said, as and when you have time. Hopefully they won't go into the thousands!

Yes, please keep me informed as I'm quite interested on how the article ratings work. Regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 12:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently in the process of translating es:Hermanos Pinzón, replacing a very weak English-language article (written by a high school student). One particular phrase—a quotation from Columbus—has me stumped, the last (quoted) phrase of the following:

... Este día se apartó Martín Alonso Pinzón con la carabela Pinta, sin obediencia y voluntad del Almirante, por codicia, dice que pensando que un indio que el Almirante había mandado poner en aquella carabela le había de dar mucho oro, y así se fue sin esperar, sin causa de mal tiempo, sino porque quiso. Y dice aquí el Almirante: «otras muchas me tiene hecho y dicho».

My moderately good foreigner's Spanish suggests the reading "Many others have said and done [such things] to me", but I can imagine parsing it several other ways. Have I understood it correctly? - Jmabel | Talk 21:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks enormously. I hadn't properly considered that muchas might be an adjective modifying an absent noun, rather than a noun in its own right. - Jmabel | Talk 22:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing (let me know if this becomes too much of a demand on your time). This 600-year-old Spanish is a bit tricky for me. My housemate is a professional interpreter, but she has no more insight than I, presumably because her deep knowledge is in modern forms of New World Spanish

Martes, 8 de enero
Por el viento Este y Sudeste mucho que ventaba no partió este día, por lo cual mandó que se guarneciese la carabela de agua y leña y de todo lo necesario para todo el viaje, porque, aunque tenía voluntad de costear toda la costa de aquella Española que andando el camino pudiese, pero, porque los que puso en las carabelas por capitanes eran hermanos, conviene a saber Martín Alonso Pinzón y Vicente Yáñez, y otros que le seguían con soberbia y codicia estimando que todo era ya suyo, no mirando la honra que el Almirante les había hecho y dado, no habían obedecido ni obedecían sus mandamientos, antes hacían y decían muchas cosas no debidas contra él, y el Martín Alonso lo dejó desde el 21 de noviembre hasta el 6 de enero sin causa alguna ni razón sino por su desobediencia, todo lo cual el Almirante había sufrido y callado por dar buen fin a su viaje, así que, por salir de tan mala compañía, con los cuales dice que cumplía disimular, aunque eran gente desmandada, y aunque tenía dice que consigo muchos hombres de bien, pero no era tiempo de entender en castigo, acordó volverse y no parar más, con la mayor prisa que le fue posible ...

My tentative translation:

Tuesday, 8 January [1493]
With such strong winds from the east and southeast he did not leave that day, because of which he ordered that that caravel be supplied with water and firewood and all that was necessary for the entire voyage, because although he intended to travel by ship along that whole Spanish coast that he could have walked on the road, but, but, because those he put in the caravels for commanders were brothers, to wit Martín Alonso Pinzón and Vicente Yáñez, and others who followed him with pride and greed estimating that everything was already theirs, not looking at the honor the Admiral had given them, they had not obeyed and did not obey his commands, before they had said and done many unmerited things against him, and this Martín Alonso left him from 21 November until 6 January without any cause or reason except disobedience, all of which the Admiral had suffered and been silent to bring a good end to his voyage, so that, to leave behind such bad company, with whom he says that it was necessary to dissimulate, although they were lawless people, and though he had to say that while with them that they were good men, because it was not the time to speak of punishment, he agreed to return and stop no more, as quickly as was possible ...

There were half a dozen places that I could imagine different interpretations either in the meaning of a clause or in the relationship between clauses, so I'm sure I misunderstood some of this (while I'm equally confident of having the bulk of it right). The first clause is actually the one that has me most confused, both in its meaning and in the relation to the rest; also I might have misunderstood the relation of que andando el camino pudiese to the rest. This thing is a minefield of ambiguity and of clauses that don't easily fit together ("Por el viento..., por lo cual mandó..., porque..., aunque..., pero..., porque (etc.) todo lo cual... , así que, por..., aunque..., y aunque..., pero, acordó volverse...") I feel like I'm reading something written by a drunken German academic (except that at least the verbs aren't all pushed to the back). - Jmabel | Talk 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm at it, one more: sería bien navegar a la cuarta del Oeste, a la parte del Sudoeste - Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Got it: a la cuarta del Oeste, a la parte del Sudoeste is "southwest by west". - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure translation to modern Spanish would be 90% of the battle. Also, you might look at The Pinzón Brothers where I've taken my shot at translation, and just indicate where you think I might be wrong. No specific rush, just so long as this doesn't fall through the cracks. Thanks for offering to help (and do let me know if at some point I'm wearing out my welcome). I'm finding a trove of material in es-wiki on topics that were either poorly covered or not covered at all in en-wiki, so I'm on a translation binge. As you can see, except for the archaic Spanish and some nautical terminology I seem to be on Tierra Firma with this. But thank you again for the navigation aids where I find myself at sea. - Jmabel | Talk 07:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, good job! I'll try to think of a good hook to propose for the Did You Know section of the main page within the next couple of days... Regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 01:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll try and work on it. I'm afraid that was my mistake, the translation of the Italian santuario is indeed shrine. Thanks for pointing it out.

I hadn't noticed your message on Commons - I'll reply there now. Regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 12:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think any of this is worth a mention in the article? --Gibmetal 77^talk 23:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently testing this out and will report back soon. Regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 02:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out. I rated all the articles in {{Gibraltar topics}} first in order to test the bot. I tested it this morning and it seems to be working just fine. Please remember to add |needs-infobox=yes and/or |needs-photo=yes to the WikiProject template when the articles lack an infobox and/or any pictures respectively. Many thanks, --Gibmetal 77^talk 09:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Shrine of Our Lady of Europe (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dab page with only one blue link/entry

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shadowjams (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qué casualidad, check out this pic I took yesterday!

Of course I'll keep them in mind, though I'm afraid photography is not allowed in the Museum... : ( --Gibmetal 77^talk 22:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably the best way to go about it as I highly doubt it's currently being exhibited (I've never seen it and I last visited about 6 months ago...). Regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 23:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gibraltar#RfC:_Self-government Guy (Help!) 11:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that I appreciated your comments today, it may have been tempting to side with JzG, so I appreciate that you didn't.

I once offered to draw a line under the past and call silly squabbles to a halt. I was massively upset that you spurned that offer. I'm prepared to offer it again, what do you say? Regards, Justin talk 17:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, you have been tendentious, argumentative and confrontational but not all the time. The editor I was referring to wasn't you in that link. I won't remove talk page messages that are civil in future, however, you have to accept that having politely asked you previously, it was impolite of you to post many of the messages that you did. Verbal abuse? That goes both ways. I said I would draw a line and not drag up the past but it isn't a free ride.

I won't promise not to revert, if I do I expect you to discuss it civilly on the talk page and I will listen to your arguments. Equally you may expect the same in return. Call it a mutually agreement to revert only once? You know that if I eventually agree all we have to do is find the material again in the history, work is never lost.

I rarely, almost never, give someone a second chance, please reflect on that. Regards, Justin talk 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a habit of doing wholesale reversions, if I did it was either a mistake, or I disagreed with them all. If you check my edits, you'll find I've only removed the ones I had a problem with. Justin talk 23:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I ask for comments limited to one line and no rants and sermons, that includes lectures. I appreciate that some editors are following the discussion closely and others are bored with the constant repetition of arguments. I have certainly NOT canvassed anyone to vote in any particular direction but have asked editors who have shown a passing interest to comment. Please trim your comments to one line and keep to the topic. --Gibnews (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I started the copyedit of Joshua Hassan last night but never got round to finishing it. I'll carry on in a while. --Gibmetal 77^talk 19:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You called me Gibnews... : )

No worries, just thought I'd let you know about it. --Gibmetal 77^talk 22:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember you asking me if El Faro de Gibraltar was still in print... From this I assume it still is. Regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 23:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a particularly sensitive issue as there are strong POV's about the incident, not necessarily based on logic. Its also confusing as the key part of the contentious judgement contains a double negative. For the avoidance of doubt, I've included the actual words, and changed the reference to one with the FULL text rather than that nasty shortened one on the leeds site. Ideally the reference should be on the ECHR site itself, but last time I looked there it was not to be found. Its also important to include the view of the dissenting justices, as that forms part of the record of the inquiry. The ECHR review is the only reliable source of information about the event, as the inquest transcript was priced in a way to prevent people seeing it. I know someone with a copy and one day will scan it and publish. I also corrected your typo which was amusing as both HMG and the IRA were involved in covering up the facts before and after, with more than bleach. Indeed almost everyone connected with the affair covered things up including the Spanish security services, who did an excellent job and kept a very low profile. --Gibnews (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently re-translating Moguer, which seems to have been a terrible machine translation from es:Moguer. Mostly I'm doing fine, but one sentence has me thrown: "Cortando las capas superiores y en los interfluvios aparecen formas onduladas o “cabezos”." I'm confused especially by capas here; I'm not sure I understand cabezos in this context; and I'm also a bit confused by what the formas onduladas (wavy forms) are composed of (I guess the local clay soil)? If you have any insights, they'd be appreciated. - Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two more:

• "En 1489 los Reyes Católicos concedieron un seguro[12] a las embarcaciones que arribaran al puerto moguereño desde Canarias, norte de África y países europeos de la cornisa atlántica." How would you understand seguro in this context?
• "Desde el XV el puerto contaba con un muelle de atraque para carga y descarga de mercancías, calzada, astilleros y una alota que era, junto con las de Huelva y Palos, de una destacada actividad dentro del litoral onubense." I don't understand alota, and cannot find it in any of several dictionaries.

- Jmabel | Talk 06:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would you agree that in the context of this article, arciprestazgo must mean "archpriesthood", not "archbishopric"? I wish these ecclesiastical matters had a citation.- Jmabel | Talk 19:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created this category to replace the one you previously created as it had a typo. Just thought I'd let you know! --Gibmetal 77^talk 18:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm not quite sure what I'm taching you though lol. --Gibmetal 77^talk 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently copyediting and adding a bit to this article (I've found his book The Fortress Came First on a dusty shelf and it has a little section on the author). Any particular reason why you named it by his initials rather than his full name? There's already an article on another Thomas Finlayson so I think we should move it to his full name or Tommy Finlayson (this is the name by which he is commonly known as - including the biographical section in the book). Either way will be tidier than his initials or Thomas Finlayson (historian), for example. Regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 21:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a google search it seems that Tommy seems to be the most popular so I'll change it to that. I was about to change it earlier but I wanted to know your reason : ). As to the images I had already thought of that (seems like we're on the same page!). There's a set from the Foregin and Commonwealth Office (Madeira and Jamaica evacuee camps) and another from the Imperial War Museum (repatriation). This image is also from the IWM, so I suspect it's ok to upload them. Could you please check for me though? They are would definitely be excellent photos to have here! Regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 22:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK at least we know we can upload half of them. I'll try to get my scanner working tomorrow. We'll have to dig deeper to figure out about those from the IWM.

Great find, as a matter of fact just a few minutes ago I was thinking we should get a photo of the evacuation memorial! There are quite a few useful ones and they're fairly recent too. --Gibmetal 77^talk 23:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Our Lady of Europe at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You may have noticed I've slowly started uploading Nathan's images to Commons. They're all going to take a while to upload though!

Any news on whether I can upload the IWM inages from Finlayson's book? --Gibmetal 77^talk 22:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know they will, but it's getting a bit tedious now! lol. Thanks for following up on that, I'll keep an eye on the discussion. Regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 23:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OnFebruary 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Our Lady of Europe, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Para esta ocasión todo el recorrido de la procesión se viste de juncias y romeros y se llena de altares para recibir al Santísimo sobre un paso de plata. Mostly clear, but I'm not at all sure what paso can mean in this context, and my confusion is no doubt compounded by uncertainty whether el Santísimo refers to a holy statue or to the Eucharist or to something else entirely. So I have "On this occasion the entire route of the procession is dressed out in sedges and is filled with pilgrims and altars para recibir al Santísimo sobre un paso de plata."

Also, did you ever get any clue what alota might mean?

I hope you are doing well. - Jmabel | Talk 18:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I followed up & see why you've been missing. I hope all are doing well! - Jmabel | Talk 18:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at the moment everything is fine. We're already at home trying to manage the new situation. I hope I'm back soon. Sorry for having let some unfinished issues :-( --Ecemaml (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea when you'll be back? Let me know when you do as I was going to ask you if you wanted to work together on a few things : ). Regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 04:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, well congratulations! I hope all is well. Just let me know when you're back... Regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 13:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me too. Hope all is well. Justin talk 17:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :-) Everything's fine but all of us are very tired. It's a great experience, but possibly better if kids were delivered without childbirth and one year old more or less :-) See you soon --Ecemaml (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah brilliant, I hope mum is doing well too... : )

The project I wanted to ask you to embark on with me is that of creating those proposed articles in the WikiProject's to do list. As you know the list is extensive and the sooner we begin adding info on those topics to Wikipedia the better, otherwise creating the list is pretty much pointless. I suggest we get each new article to at least start-class status before releasing them to the mainspace in order to nominate them for Did You Know. I also suggest setting ourselves a target of how many we want to get through each month. So... What do you think? You up for it? --Gibmetal 77^talk 15:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ecemaml. First of all I apologise for taking so long to reply - as you may have noticed I haven't been very active myself recently. I must say it's a real shame as I think we'd team up well in such a project (as indeed we have in the past). However, I completely understand as I'm struggling to find time lately too. Would you, however, consider a much more informal approach to the proposal? Say, we start working on an article (e.g. on history/politics/biography/...) without worrying how long it's going to take us and then just take it from there. Any further suggestions are very welcome. Let me know what you think. : ) --Gibmetal 77^talk 15:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great news! I look forward to working together on those articles in due course. I'll take a look at your Commons uploads tomorrow. Regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 23:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Colin Ramirez the footballer? If so, this may be of interest.

• News and notes: Commons at 6 million, BLP taskforce, milestones and more

• In the news: Robson Revisions, Rumble in the Knesset, and more

• Dispatches: Fewer reviewers in 2009

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Olympics

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and apologies for the belated reply. I'm afraid I uploaded those photos a couple of years ago and, in retrospect, agree that Crown Copyright looks dubious. If I remember correctly I originally used a different licence (I can't recall which) but it was replaced with the Crown Copyright one by some other user whom I must have considered more conversant with copyright policy. By the way, kudos on the new Gibraltar articles and DYKs! I actually have a photocopy of an 1880s edition of the Gibraltar Guardian, which might prove useful. Kind regards, RedCoat10 (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OnFebruary 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tommy Finlayson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 06:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• News and notes: New Georgia Encyclopedia, BLPs, Ombudsmen, and more

• In the news: Labor squeeze revisited, journalist consultations, philosophy bungles, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Singapore

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• News and notes: $2 Million donation, cybersquatting, comScore statistics and more

• In the news: Macmillan's Wiki-textbooks and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Mammals

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ecemaml, how's that going? I am really glad to read that everything has gone well and that your family is bigger now. Congratulations!

I am not really active as an editor lately, neither are you for what I can see. However, I'll link here two interesting references I've found:

• La Reivindicación Andalucista de Gibraltar de 1918. The document includes a partial transcription of the conference given by the writer and journalist José Andrés Vázquez in the Centro Regionalista Andaluz de Sevilla the November 27, 1918.

• Lo Estratégico en la Cuestión de Gibraltar. Document published by the Complutense University and authored by Luis Romero Bartumeus, journalist and Chief of External Relations of the Association of Municipalities of the Campo de Gibraltar. Among other things, the document provides sources and analyzes the first two years of work in the Tripartite Forum for Dialogue on Gibraltar. Notice the red link! (A not-so-subtle suggestion, I know!).

Take care, mate. Espero volver a verte pronto por estos lares! And, again, congratulations! Cremallera (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your suspicion is that Gibnews is Paul Tunbridge, spokesperson for the Voice of Gibraltar Group, then you're barking up the wrong tree and this is beginning to look like a witch hunt. A pretty nasty one at that. Justin talk 12:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm presuming good faith but I know who Gibnews is, I just looked up who the Conservative Party leader in Gibraltar is and they're not the same person. Nor is Gibnews listed as a spokesperson anywhere for the VOGG. It would appear you've taken 2 and 2 and made 5. This is really starting to look like harassment and I'm saying that in the sincere belief you have a genuine concern that is misplaced. Justin talk 13:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK fine but be careful, this could very well blow up in your face. It appears based on what you've said to me you're incorrect and I would suggest you check your facts very carefully. Justin talk 13:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gibnews isn't Julio Pons either.... Justin talk 13:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK fine I tried to help, I just hope it doesn't end in tears. Justin talk 13:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The attempt at outing has been raised at AN/I, you might like to discuss it there. Justin talk 15:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ecemaml, I would have a pretty good idea what you think you've uncovered but you've taken 2 and 2 to make 5. Even your comments on my talk page are blaming me for your block, not accepting the fact you went too far. I tried several times to stop you and reluctantly took it to AN/I where you'll note I didn't support the block. Further, the admins who reviewed said nothing about my conduct only that it was a clear attempt at outing and worthy of a block. You might want to take those comments on board, especially the comments about continuing to harass Gibnews. If you intend to persist you can be certain a lengthy block will result and no one wants to see that. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 12:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JohnCD (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. EyeSerene^talk 17:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Gibraltar

  I read your earlier unblock request which you've now removed while you rework it. Before you get another request up, I think a fuller explanation from me might be helpful for you in deciding how you address the issue I blocked you for. This post to Justin A Kuntz's talk page, although not actually naming anyone, does everything else but. In his next post to you Justin warned you that this was a dangerous route to go down and gave you a further two warnings before raising it an ANI. It seems to me that you were indirectly looking for confirmation of your suspicions, and then casting about for other possibilities when you were told you were wrong. This is attempted outing according to WP:OUTING. As for the one week block, I wanted something that makes it clear how serious outing is, but doesn't exclude you from contributing to the article for too long. Many might see one week as lenient; another recent case on ANI involving one editor attempting to find out another's identity resulted in an indefbock. If you'd just emailed your concerns to an admin or asked for advice without being specific, that would have been different, but the public and persistent way you posted to a number of pages was a deciding factor. For what it's worth, your concerns about a possible COI are being taken seriously and will be a factor in what happens with the article. EyeSerene^talk 11:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EyeSerene, thank you for your explanation (now I have the issue clearer). May I contact you privately? --Ecemaml (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course; my email is linked from my user page. Red Hat has also forwarded an email to me, which I'll review shortly. EyeSerene^talk 17:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was planning to contact you yesterday, but having a one month old baby does not allow to meet any planning. As I'm much more interested in clarifying this issue that in the block in itself, I don't think it's a problem. I'll try to contact you today. Best retards and thank you for your time --Ecemaml (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I'd like to ask the lift of my block: # I didn't intend to break any wikipedia policy related to WP:OUTING. If I did it, I deeply regret it and apologize and compromise not to do it again. # It's also fair to say that as far as I know I haven't disclosed any information about the identity of Gibnews that weren't been previously released voluntarily by him. Of course that I won't provide further details (I've also contacted privately with EyeSerene, showing that anyway all the information I have has been voluntarily posted to the wikimedia projects). In fact, I didn't disclose any information until I was "warned" by Justin (I had simply contacted Atama, although using a not proper way, something I regret). I dully recognize that I was very stupid there and, when asked by Justin, I should have just shut up and wait for Atama's directions. # In case I decide to pursue the COI issue, I won't do it unless it can be guaranteed that WP:OUTING is not infringed. I'm look for advice from admins related to COI assessment (privately, of course) and only with their permission I'll release the information I will be allowed to do. If their assessment is "no way", I'll drop the issue, since I'm not really interested in it. Best regards and thank you for your understanding --Ecemaml (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Per email exchange and assurances in unblock request. Request handled by: EyeSerenetalk Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Promise not compromise. May I suggest you drop by AN/I, read EyeSerene's comments and modify your unblock request accordingly. I doubt you'll be unblocked if you're going to continue to pursue your search for information on Gibnews. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 19:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I was wrong, please stay out of outing territory OK. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 19:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reference desk: Wikipedia Reference Desk quality analyzed

• News and notes: Usability, 15M articles, Vandalism research award, and more

• In the news: Idealizing the Star Spangled Banner, Curious Announcement, and more

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Severe Weather

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ecemaml. Unfortunately I only saw your emails a little while ago. Sorry it's taken me this long, I'm terrible at checking my emails! I added the text to the article but was notified of an edit conflict as you had just added it yourself. I'll give it a copy edit now... --Gibmetal 77^talk 21:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]