Revision as of 14:52, 2 March 2009 editEcemaml (talk | contribs)6,931 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 190.160.176.139 identified as vandalism to last revision by Conquistador. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:52, 10 March 2009 edit undoCremallera (talk | contribs)846 edits →History of Gibraltar: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Please read this . Thank you. --] <small>(])</small> 05:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC) | Please read this . Thank you. --] <small>(])</small> 05:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
== History of Gibraltar == | |||
Hola. Soy novato en esto de la Misplaced Pages, pero no pude evitar comentar en la discusión de la página de historia de Gibraltar. La verdad es que los editores hacen oídos sordos a lo que les indico. Incluyo el link a la discusión, que es larga y, ocasionalmente, de un tono nada constuctivo por ninguna de las partes implicadas, debo reconocer. | |||
Dado mi desconocimiento acerca de como funciona la enciclopedia y visto el dominio del inglés del que haces gala exactamente en la misma página de discusión; así como teniendo en cuenta el hecho de que los editores ya te conozcan y tú les conozcas a ellos, me he decidido a pedirte consejo al respecto. Una "third opinion", como se indica en cierta página de política de la Misplaced Pages, más que nada para saber si lo que pido a los mentados editores es razonable. | |||
Lo que les solicito es una referencia para cierta frase que han tenido a bien incluir en el artículo. ¿Qué opinas? Lamento las molestias, y un saludo.] (]) 17:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:52, 10 March 2009
|
(Templates courtesy of User:Booksworm and User:RedCoat10) |
|
Bay of Gibraltar
You're correct, apologies. In English you can use Bay of XXX or XXX Bay almost interchangeably. I thought it was a language confusion and unnecessary. Justin talk 23:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Olivenza
Hello Ecemaml. I have reverted some of your recent edits to Olivenza as they caused a huge POv shift of the article. The Falkland Islands model does not apply for this article, it is much more in line with the WP:NPOV applied for articles such as Kosovo, where international law cannot clearly determine current status. The article on Olivenza must neither state that it is a Spanish nor a Portuguese territory, just its present de facto situation and claims. Thank you. Regards, Húsönd 21:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I thought your edits made for a much better article, this issue has been around for a long time and hopefully we can now see it sorted. Where exactly in our policies such a pov position as "must neither state that it is a Spanish nor a Portuguese territory" is beyond me. Keep up the good work. I suggest you put your well considered arguments on Husond's talk page at Talk:Olivenza and we can see if we can build a consensus; your arguments make sense to me. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Prompt ass licking as usual, SqueakBox. Ecemaml, it is not me who needs a better argument, it is you. WP:NPOV has a very simple and straightforward application here- the article cannot say "Olivenza is Spanish, period" because it is well referenced that some countries consider it de jure Portuguese. This is verifiable, and therefore WP:NPOV determines the neutral tone of the article. And as you can see in Kosovo, the fact that it is de facto independent (as Olivenza is de facto Spanish), you may have noticed that its first paragraph does not start with "Kosovo is an independent country". Furthermore, you are an administrator on the Spanish Misplaced Pages, and you probably have similar policies there. But then on the other hand, SqueakBox has been on this Misplaced Pages for a long time and still doesn't seem to have a good grasp on policies. Regards, Húsönd 01:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Request
Please read this . Thank you. --Conquistador (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
History of Gibraltar
Hola. Soy novato en esto de la Misplaced Pages, pero no pude evitar comentar esto en la discusión de la página de historia de Gibraltar. La verdad es que los editores hacen oídos sordos a lo que les indico. Incluyo el link a la discusión, que es larga y, ocasionalmente, de un tono nada constuctivo por ninguna de las partes implicadas, debo reconocer.
Dado mi desconocimiento acerca de como funciona la enciclopedia y visto el dominio del inglés del que haces gala exactamente en la misma página de discusión; así como teniendo en cuenta el hecho de que los editores ya te conozcan y tú les conozcas a ellos, me he decidido a pedirte consejo al respecto. Una "third opinion", como se indica en cierta página de política de la Misplaced Pages, más que nada para saber si lo que pido a los mentados editores es razonable.
Lo que les solicito es una referencia para cierta frase que han tenido a bien incluir en el artículo. ¿Qué opinas? Lamento las molestias, y un saludo.Cremallera (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)