User talk:Ecemaml/Archive 1

¡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™}

Drop your obsession

Drop your ridiculous obsession with me. Grow up.

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

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)

... 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Your Arbcom case

I read your evidence today. Pretty solid. His response to you telling him that ArbCom has opened isn't going to exactly help him. :) Honestly ecemaml, alot of admins would've blocked him for his behavior already, so I'm pretty sure you have a good shot at winning this one. One question though. Do you have any evidence against him on any other articles he's worked on? Having evidence on multiple articles against someone like that is useful. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand. The thing is, depending on how he acts, he might be banned before the arbcom case is finished. I'd use what he said under the ".es" heading below in the case too. He seems like a troll himself. Like I said, I wouldn't worry about it, especially since it doesn't look like he's going to mount a defense. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 22:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

.es

Remove my block in .es NOW!--Gibraltarian 18:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Woah! YOU call me a liar, I reply that you know full well you are the only one lying....and then you complain that I am insulting you? If you say something which you know is not true (as you often do) you do not have the right to object to being called a liar.

Also posting something which you do not agree with is not "vandalism" as you automatically label it. I have NOT "vandalised" anything in the Falklands article, what I have done is edit the massively POV version with a neutral and factually accurate one, something which everybody should support. But of course, as a troll I should not expect different from you.--Gibraltarian 09:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

UNBLOCK ME ON .ES NOW!--Gibraltarian 13:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Btw

I am close to asking for Gibraltarian to be blocked. he's getting worse, not better and apparently he's not even going to fight his RfAr. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 12:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to think about it for a little bit but I'm looking at blocking him for 48 hours or so and then protecting the article during the block so he doesn't try any shananigans. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 16:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm monitoring History of Gibraltar. If he continues, I'll protect it. When he comes back, I'm giving him one shot at this. If he continues with these antics, I'm going to block him indefinitely. When that happens, any sockpuppets he use can be blocked for a day or so. We'll get this worked out. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 14:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi. Please be careful when reverting. In particular, the reverts to history of Gibraltar are removing a few spelling corrections and the like, and it's not clear that all of the substantive changes are actually at dispute. Clearly you have been harrassed unacceptably here so I can understand your hastiness, but it would be better for you and for everyone if you just reverted the offensive parts. Morwen - Talk 10:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Your reverts have changed 'battle' to 'batle' and 'Britain' (which is a country) to 'Great Britain' (which is an island), for example. I have been following the case from a distance. Morwen - Talk 10:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I would not be too sure of that definition, Great Britain is a collection of islands excepting the largest one, Ireland.--Gibnews 13:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Morwen - Talk 10:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Open proxy

Hi Ecemaml. Wikipedia permanently autoblocked you because you're operating from an ISP with an unsecure (open) proxy which I recently banned. Open proxies are prohibited from editing because they are used to launch attacks on Wikipedia that are very difficult to counter. However, there doesn't seem to be all that much vandalism coming from that IP, so I've unblocked it. If the IP address is used to launch any coordinated attacks in the future, though, it might get permanently banned by another administrator. If possible, you should contact your ISP and notify them that their proxy is insecure. Sorry for the inconvenience. —[admin] Pathoschild 08:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltarian

Has been indefinitely blocked. I am going to give it a day or 2 and then unblock the 2 Gibraltar articles. If he tries to use sockpuppets, he will be blocked. I'm going to let the Arbcom know too. I would rather that they have decided this, but G forced our hand. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 02:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If he starts to attack the 2 Gibraltar pages, let me know. From discussion on the administrators noticeboard, we've decided that if he attacks again, we're going to do a range block for a short time. That would block all of the IPs that he could possibly use. It's a drastic step but it's worth it if he starts this up again. He wrote me an email, demanding to be unblocked. Never. :) He's out of chances. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 19:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

He's just clueless. He just emailed me again and called me your "racist tool". God. He doesn't get it. What you say is as important as what you say on here. Otherwise, we'd have anarchy. As an admin on the Spanish wiki, you know how it works. I'm sure you have blocked user on issues that you have no opinions on. That's how it is with this. I've never even read the articles! :) That's not what I am here for. There are articles where I am involved, of course, but on articles where I am acting as just as an admin, I'm basically like a police officer. And again, you know this as an admin on another Wikipedia. I'd rather *not* know the specific issues. I'm here to judge behavior and nothing more when I am acting as just an admin. Why many (including Gibraltarian) don't understand that is beyond my understanding. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 20:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not "ATTACKING" anything, merely counteracting Ecemaml's racism and hatred of Gibraltarians. Ecemaml has created this dispute deliberately, as he is an obsessed troll with an inferiority complex and a massive chip on his shoulder about Gibraltar. Is is hypocritical for Ecemaml to say he is uncomfortable with a range block, as this is precisely what he has done on .es in order to protect his racist edits, propaganda and lies from interference.

Ecemaml, it is high time you realised that I am more determined to defeat your racism than you can ever imagine, and there is NO WAY that you can win this battle. I will keep you in check, I will NOT allow you to use WP as a vehicle for your fascist inspired propaganda and racism. There is nothing you can do to stop me. Nothing at all. Your SOLE option is to forget all Gibraltar related articles and leave the editing to people who actually have some knowledge on the subject, and are not motivated by the ideals of Franco, as you are. Gibraltarian

A battle? Gibraltarian, if you spent a tenth of the time you spend reverting and insulting in reading (and understanding) wikipedia policies (Wikipedia is not a primary source, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, Wikipedia:Verifiability), you wouldn't be banned in whatever wikipedia you edit. Wikipedia is not the hooligan-like web forum you've got used to, and here we've got quite precisse rules, policies and guidelines (all those you recurrently violate). --Ecemaml 12:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I just rolled back Gibraltarian's hate-filled nonsense here. I'll keep doing it if you don't object. I recommend you just ignore him, he's now dropped to the level of a vandal. Merry Christmas, by the way. Dmcdevit·t 18:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocking the latest sock of Gibraltarian

I'd ask User:Dmcdevit. He's helped in reverting that page. If he says no, I'm sure he'll recommend someone for you. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You were right about Gibo1 (talk · contribs) and I blocked him. Then I found Gibo (talk · contribs), Gibo2 (talk · contribs), Gibo3 (talk · contribs), and Gibo4 (talk · contribs). He's using them as sleeper accounts to wait until they're old enough to get around semi-protection. I've asked for a sock check to see if there are any more he created. Dmcdevit·t 20:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Governor of Gibraltar

Are you still disputing the neutrality of Governor of Gibraltar? From the talk page, I can't see the phrase you say is POV, and I don't think wrong dates constitutes a POV. So I've taken the tag down for just now. Astrotrain 17:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Sobre 1812 en Spain

Puse "1812 (legally)" porque es la primera referencia jurídicamente legal en el que se recoge el concepto de España como "nación", concretamente la Constitución de Cádiz de 1812. Desconozco si hay otro anterior. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 11:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious?

Regarding this edit: Are you serious? Did you really mean what you entered? --TML1988 00:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltar in Spanish

I see the pages are locked, so can't add the photograph of the cable car, which is now on the UK pages and in the commons; It should settle the dispute between it being a 'funicular' or a 'teleferico'. Funicular is a dirty word in Gibraltar as we have been fighting the construction of one, which would have been a monstrosity. --Gibnews 13:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

CheckUser

You may forward your CheckUser request to Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. --TML1988 22:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian

Hi, this arbitration case of which you were a party has closed. The remedies involve a personal attack parole and two forms of probation on Gibraltarian. In extreme cases he may be blocked for up to one year if he breaks probation or parole. The indefinite block will remain in place and the remedies will apply if and when Gibraltarian is unblocked by an administrator. These remedies apply to his sock puppets also. Please see the final decision for full details.

For the Arbitration Committee. Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ismael76

In recent days, Ismael76 (talk · contribs) has been editing Gibraltar with an aggressive Spanish POV, and the vast majority of this user's edits are to Gibraltar and its talk page. Gibnews already has his hands full trying to reason with this user, so can you check this out and see if you can intervene here? --TML1988 01:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Good news

Forwarding a message sent to me by Woohookitty:

Wanted to mention that according to User:Gibnews, Gibraltarian was kicked off of the only ISP in Gibraltar. I was finally able to unprotect the 2 articles he had hit so much. Yay! Hopefully he'll stay away. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this monkey has finally been knocked off your back. --TML1988 16:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, he has not been kicked off - I just said that if the problem persisted it was an option. In practice there are two serious ISP's in Gibraltar dealing with retail clients. Both are known to have strong policies on abuse and I deal with them on a regular basis at a high level. Guess he has realised that the tactics used do not benefit his position, and I would have hoped we could all get down to creating sensible pages.

Perhaps someone can convince others to do the same and create useful pages instead of argument.--Gibnews 15:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Ecemaml.

I blocked him indefinitely. I'm very surprised that he wasn't blocked by someone else. Typically, the anti-vandal patrol blocks those accounts immediately after they are created. Oh well. If you need anything else, let me know. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Block of ISP at Spanish wikipedia

Hi there, don't know what the vandals did but you blocked a whole ISP at the Spanish wikipedia. Excluding such a big number of users from the second largest wikipedia version is an overkill and I am sure you can find a better option. Furthermore, there is no reasonable way people can complain about it as the block prohibits all editing, please do something about this. Añoranza 23:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Your insults

Hey, how do you dare to insult Finnish people? You should be ashamed. I don't know if you have a bad time in our country but if so it doesn't mean that everybody of us is bad. If you are disrespectful again I will ask an administrator from the Finnish wikipedia to block you for 1 entire week.

Panama

Hi, now we are talking: [1]. Take care. Boninho 23:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I am off from the Spanish wikipedia now. I have another paper... you may be interested: [2]. Take care. Boninho 02:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Venga, muy bien. Te he pasado el artículo de Gibraltar sólo como anécdota. Mis simpatias están hacia la postura de España, sin ninguna duda. Pero te lo he anexado porque el tío menciona por ahí el asunto del "muro de la verguenza".

Con respecto a lo de Panamá, que de hecho es el problema con todos los demás muros, es que son nombres no-oficiales (obviamente) y las referencias que encontrarás serán siempre del tipo "estos dicen", "aquellos dijeron", nunca habrá un referencia a un acto oficial donde, después de abrir una botella de champagne se bautice un muro así. La mención al tema de Panamá tiene su origen en que en alguna época la valla fue llamada así y mi punto es que no fuí yo quién lo invento sino que, efectivamente, podías encontrar quién, en un artículo académico sobre história recogía esa tradición oral. La valla ya no existe, al igual que el muro de Berlín, por eso es que el nombre "popular" también deja de existir y las generaciones jóvenes nunca escucharon hablar sobre el tema. No hay más secreto que eso, pasa a ser un asunto "histórico", de memoria para los viejos y de tradición oral, registrada en algún lugar oscuro de una biblioteca. De cualquier manera no voy a insistir más en el asunto, me ha desganado al igual que a tí, el asunto de Gibraltar. Hace mucho calor por aquí, deberíamos ir a buscar una cerveza. Saludos, Boninho 17:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Perdón, la referencia de Fawcett es: "Gibraltar: The Legal Issues" by J. E. S. Fawcett, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs), Vol. 43, No. 2 (Apr., 1967) , pp. 236-251. Saludos. Boninho

Saludos

Hola Ecemaml, Si tienes tiempo te agradeceria me echases una mano con el articulo de San Roque. Gibraltarian esta de vuelta con muy malas ideas. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC

Hola: Tras un tiempo sufriendo unas posiciones cada vez mas fundamentalistas e intransigentes por la parte de Gibnews, y de su incapacidad de reternerse a la hora de borrar fuentes fidedignas del artículo sobre Gibraltar, he creado esto:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gibnews

Te agradeceriamos que aportases tu opinion a la request for comment.

Un saludo --Burgas00 20:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Spannish history...

Sorry to bother you about this but yours is a name that popped up quite a bit looking around the Spanish wiki in this. It seems to me that Spanish history is something the articles here on english wikipedia are really lacking much on for instance the carlist wars articles. Could you possibly see to asking any Spanish English speakers from over on Spanish wikipedia to have a look at our versions of the articles and trying to translate the Spanish ones?--Josquius 14:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Trouble with user ecemaml

Hola, estudio tu lengua ahora, but I'm going to write in English, it's much easier. Somebody using the name "ecemaml" is making a lot of trouble in the Finnish wikipedia, vandalizing a lot, insulting our language and culture and challenging people to start a war in the Spanish wikipedia where you mean you are unbeatable and very powerful. You say in your Spanish page somebody is using your name in other wikipedias so I guess you are not the person making trouble in our wikipedia, you don't speak Finnish, do you? If you are not this person just to alert you about what's happening. If you are I must tell you that you are going to have trouble with me and with others who got very angry with your insults, but I'm quite sure you are not the vandal. Hasta la vista amigo.

Hola!

Hola mi buen Ecemaml podrias por favor enviarme un email a boninho2@yahoo.com? es un asunto urgente, mil gracias. boninho 21:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

History of Morocco

Hola Ece. Gracias por tu ayuda. Lo agradezco. -- Szvest 12:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That makes me laugh. She/he needed some air to express her/his frustration against Moroccans. The irony is that she/he hates racist people while the last line shows the truth. Anyway, she/he can express his/her irony within limits. It makes me remember the fate of Gibraltarian! -- Szvest 09:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Porqué tú no lo escribes, ya que esa hoja es "tuya", y no se lo que tú consideras apropiado.Gracias.Moi 13:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just filed an ANI report on Bokpasa's account. Could you please have a look? Thanks. -- Szvest 21:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia

Thanks for your assistance in my problems there. I rather hope the problems with user:gibraltarian are over, and you certainly know I am not him !

I managed to re-instate my user page which was vandalised by the guy from the 'anti-vandal' task force. He did not have the courtesy to apologise.

Perhaps I should get a telefonica.net IP :)

--Gibnews 18:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Spanish Gibraltarians

Hola Ecemaml I would appreciate your imput on the request for undeletion for Spanish Gibraltarians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_16

Gracias, un saludo

--Burgas00 20:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hola Ecemaml. El articulo fue undeleted y posteriormente injustamente deleted por un administrador sin consenso alguno... Te agredeceria que dieses tu voto aqui http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_4

Un Saludo!--Burgas00 15:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltarian

Gibraltarian has returned again. User talk:212.120.227.108 is Gibraltarian. As they have made a number of repititive edits to the exact same pages in the exact same way as Gibraltarian, I've reported this on the case file. I think something needs to be done. The Ip isn't blocked, and its from Gibraltar. I've added a notice that it's a suspected sockpuppet. Sheogarath 17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Long overdue, but...

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For withstanding wave after wave of Gibraltarian's attacks against yourself, I, Scobell302, hereby present you with the Barnstar of Diligence. 19:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Vananga Rapa nui

Hi. Could you read Rapanui language and their talk page. I'm confused about the information about "old rapanui language" and the language of rongo-rongo; the translation of an article on numerals is wrong, but my English isn't sufficient for explain it to the editor. I'll try to correct it, will you watch my progress? Thanks. Lin linao 09:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Because of the abuse and vandalism you are receiving from anonymous users, I have semi-protected your user talk page until June 22. Hope this helps! Metros 14:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Metros took care of it for ya. :) Exactly what I would've done. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 14:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

What?

Ecemaml, why did you spread lies about Finland? We don't care about your insults against Finland. We arenot scared either. Have a nice day 85.179.220.68 (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Galician

Hola, Ecemaml. Como hemos colaborado indirectamente en ese problema de wikicrossing y títeres, quería dejarte un mensaje de buenri, y para que en cualquier cosa que necesites de gl.wp cuentes conmigo. Un saludo. Y ánimo. --Xabier Cid (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

History of Gibraltar

Hola Ecemaml y gracias por el mensaje. Decía que "las tradiciones de las aldeas que recibieron los refugiados todavía hablan..."—No se puede saber con certeza absoluta si todos los de San Roque lo ven como un 'éxodo'. Quizás se podría expresar de otra manera y asi evitar el uso de "weasel-words" (que es efectivamente la generalización).

Posiblemente algo como: "It is often referred to as the Exodus of Gibraltar by...", con una fuente por supuesto. RedCoat10 (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Flickr

Pues me parece que sí; de hecho, creo que fue eso tío que tomó está foto. Pero por una razón u otra, nunca llegué a subir más imágenes suyas.

Flickr is great source for free images. There are plenty of Gibraltar-related articles in need of an image or two, so a browse through Flickr may indeed not go amiss. Thanks for the note! RedCoat10 (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Gibraltar/Did you know

Hi there Ecemaml. Just to let you know that this is a collection of Gibraltar-related DYKs as they appeared on the Main Page, therefore their content should not be changed. Thanks. --Gibmetal 77^talk 20:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's probably best to discuss it with RedCoat10 as he created the portal and knows a bit more about portals than I do. Saludos. --Gibmetal 77^talk 21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ecemaml, sorry to but in. I don’t see why the DYK hook violates Wikipedia’s neutral POV policy. The GFA’s bid was effectively blocked by Spain—no disputing that. True, other countries also vetoed/blocked the application, but the whole point of this hook, and what made it interesting (and therefore eligible for WP:DYK) was the fact that Spain made reference to an irredentist dispute when opposing the application. Such issues would have arisen at Template talk:Did you know when the hook was initially put up for consideration. In this case, I fear that rephrasing it would amount to verbiage and make a mountain out of a molehill. RedCoat10 (talk) 21:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't quite understand what you mean. I'm well aware that being able to block an application per se is not a right enjoyed by the Spanish Football Federation—or indeed any other football association—and that right vests in the officials of EUFA. The fact of the matter here is that Gibraltar's application was blocked, albeit it not per se, as a result of the Spanish Football Association. It was also opposed by other associations, but that still doesn't detract from the fact that Spain too blocked it.

However, in the interests of settling the issue, how about changing it to: "...had their application blocked following fierce opposition by the Spanish Football Federation which drew on Spain's claim to the territory". Now that's fairly long-winded but avoids "blocked by Spain" while keeping to gist of the original hook, so if it is alright with you... RedCoat10 (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Cathedral of St. Mary the Crowned

Hi. You wrote:

consecrated as the parish church (naming it "Iglesia de Santa María")

It might have been named that but you didn't provide a source. How do we know it wasn't named Parroquia de Santa María for example. That's all. Regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 10:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could change it to (naming it the church of "Santa María") until we find out what it was called exactly. However, I don't think it's that important and I don't want to seem too picky! :o) --Gibmetal 77^talk 12:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Thank you

It seems to me that it could become a very interesting article and it fits the criteria to be included in both WikiProjects. I'm ok with it as long as it is written with a NPOV in mind. --Gibmetal 77^talk 10:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we all tend to be a little bit biased even when we do our best not to, but that's why we should make a collective effort to minimise this. I look forward to the development of this article and I'll help out wherever I can. Saludos, --Gibmetal 77^talk 12:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

[From [3]]: Please refrain from removing sourced and attributed information from articles with such a poor argument. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you interact with editors on the talk page instead of simply edit warring, all that will do is gain you a block and as an admin on the Spanish wikipedia you really should know better and be setting an example. For information I have made a comment on the NPOV noticeboard. Thank you and good night. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard‎#Gibraltar. Justin talk 23:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

[From [4]]: 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)

You are now in violation of WP:3RR, I would strongly urge that you self-revert. Justin talk 00:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 10, all of it is devoted to the opening consensus. I would again strongly urge you to self-revert and take it to the Talk Page. Justin talk 00:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith yourself would be rather a good idea, you have breached WP:3RR, whilst I have not and I'm telling you now, as I did in my edit summaries, that I am not going to indulge you in an edit war. However, this is the third notification that you have breached WP:3RR and technically you risk a block if you do not self-revert; though I will not be reporting it. For the record on two points a) I have assumed good faith for your edits, my edit summaries gave a reason for my reverts, together with an invite to discuss on the talk page. b) removing postings from a talk page demonstrates that I have read them and nothing more. If I don't want you posting on my talk page I will tell you. I would also suggest that discussing your proposed edits with your fellow editors is a good route to achieving your goals rather than seeking a confrontation, which is what you appear to be doing. As I said on the NPOV noticeboard I'd be delighted if first impressions were wrong, believe me I do not enjoy confrontation. Justin talk 01:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Exodus of the Spanish population of Gibraltar in 1704

I've nominated Exodus of the Spanish population of Gibraltar in 1704 for deletion as a content fork. The deletion discussion is at [5]. Justin talk 12:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: The Convent

I will look into it when I have some time later today. --Gibmetal 77^talk 13:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Moorish Castle

I tried and tried last night but I couldn't get it show the marker on the map. I left a message on the infobox's talk page to see if anyone can help. It seems that this parameter is a recent addition to the template. --Gibmetal 77^talk 13:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I couldn't get it to sit inside the map; it was late and I was tired. I have now corrected the marker's position. Regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 15:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: I dare...

It's not a matter of having to dare, I state on user page that I am willing to translate from English to Spanish and vice versa :o).

Interesting find, mind if I ask where you found it? Your translation isn't that bad, you just have a minor problem of literal translation. Archaic Spanish isn't something I speak every day, but I'll give it my best.

Just out of curiosity (if you don't mind me asking, of course), what part of Spain are you from and how did you come to learn English to such a level? Saludos, --Gibmetal 77^talk 23:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for taking so long with your request. I actually translated it but forgot to give it to you. However, I see you found it yourself. Nevertheless, I'll copy it here for future reference.

“ Excellency: This city, having received your excellency's letter dated today, replies: that it has sworn to Sir Philip V as its king and natural lord and as is expected by his faithful and loyal vassals, to sacrifice their lives in his defence, and so it shall be with this city and its inhabitants: therefore it has nothing to add on the subject of the attached letter, but wishes that Our Lord grants your excellency to live for many years. Gibraltar, 1st August 1704. ”

That PhD thesis seems like a very interesting read and I shall have to find some time to do so.

With regards to language, I'm quite impressed. Even though you say your "English is far from being perfect", I think it's at a pretty decent level considering you only started learning it at school. I can't imagine it's too easy to learn English that way, as it might be if you learn another of the Romance languages for example (due to the similarities they share).

Yes you're right, I was born and brought up in Gibraltar. At home I received a bilingual education from my family, as neither language has ever been favoured over the other. Unfortunately, we still don't have a bilingual education as such. Nevertheless, I made it a point of learning Spanish properly. I'm glad your attempting to give your daughter a bilingual education. Most people who are naturaly bilingual take it for granted and don't really realise the advantages it can bring. I hope it's going well and that she appreciates your efforts later on in life.

Cuando tengas alguna otra cosilla por traducir no dudes en contactarme. Es algo que no me cuesta y además me gusta bastante. Un saludo, --Gibmetal 77^talk 16:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This offends me

Hello. Out of curiosity, as an administrator on the Spanish Wikipedia, how could you possibly allow comments such as these to figure on your talk page? This is borderline harassment. And what's more, to add insult to injury, you try to recruit the guy. I hope that doens't mean you find these kind of contributions constructive.

I have normally held a fairly high opinion of yourself as an administrator, but even your comments have left a bad taste in my mouth. While I may have disagreed with you in the past, you can be sure I've never insulted you. RedCoat10 (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. No doubt you’ve realised that the user’s remarks were indeed contrary to the very spirit of Wikipedia. You can imagine my surprise at seeing them on your talk page, hence the above message. Prima facie, this, coupled with what looked like a canvassing was indeed cause for concern. However, I appreciate your explanation and subsequent message to Té y Kriptonita.

I was surprised by the fact that you had lumped together the Gibraltarian Wikipedians as annoying. This you tell me, while seemingly uncivil, was not intended as such. Fair enough. However, the bit about Justin et al acting uncivil is a bit of a red herring IMHO, but nevermind.

I do my best to be a civil and level-headed editor and readily admit mistakes, and so does Gibnews. Gibnews in particular has spent a fair bit of time building up the articles on Gibraltar and has well-rounded experience. Obviously it’s not always easy staying cool when the editing gets hot, but then again, conflict is inevitable in a project like this; with so many editors of different backgrounds and interests contributing freely, it is a tribute to the project that it works with as (relatively) little conflict as it does.

Muchas gracias por la aclaración,

El colono inglés :) RedCoat10 (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy

1. Please DO not edit my user page, if you find something you do not like there, you can leave a comment. Editing other peoples user pages is a no no

2. Similarly do not remove my comments on a talk page.

3. In relation to the history of Gibraltar, take a moment to read the discussion page before blindly reverting edits.

You may be used to acting as an administrator on the .es wikipedia and getting your way there this is different and if you continue behaving badly there will be consequences. --Gibnews (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Uncited edits

[From [6]]: As I've told you in the summary edit, I can't see any reason in your editions in History of Gibraltar. If you feel there's lack of sources in a statement, ask for sources (and explain why it's a POV, something that I'm not yet able to find out). All the sourcing to the statement are in Integration with Britain Party. I don't think that such an irrelevant fact requires plenty of sources as, I've told you, I can't see the POV in the statement. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edits were uncited, I'd noted several other edits and most I left alone. As is usual you assume my reverts were bad faith and blindly revert to edit war again. I also note the offensive comments you made about me on Redcoat's Talk Page. As I said the first time I came across you, its easier to attain consensus when you don't set out to rub people up the wrong way. As my granny used to say you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. Have a nice day now. Justin talk 22:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

[From [7]]:

Yes, I have assumed good faith. That's the reason why I haven't escalated your editions yet. Let's see the sequence of facts:

• rv POV (23:29, 18 October 2008). Your edition removes the following sentence: "with the help of the independent group led by Peter Isola". Well, such a statement claims that the IWBP got the Chief Minister post with the help of the independent group that Isola led. As so, it can be true or false but I can't see how it can be a POV (BTW, it was the first and ever time the Chief Minister was elected upon a sort of coalition after the elections and not before).
• Please, don't use so loosely the term "POV". If you simply doesn't know a fact, please, ask for references if needed (BTW, AACR: 7 seats, IWBP: 5 seats, Isola's group: 3 seats) (16:13, 19 October 2008). As you can see, I point out different fact: your edition is wrong, at least on the grounds you state (you know that if there are problems with the sourcing of a statement, you must use {{fact}}; b) my edition can hardly be considered a POV (at least you've not been able to explain why it's a POV); c) I'm including the results of the election. I assume that you're familiar with Gibraltar history, so that AACR and IWBP shouldn't be unfamiliar acronyms to you.
• rv POV? uncited (22:10, 19 October 2008). You go on reverting, but again failing to explain why it's a POV and mistakenly using the apparent lack of sources as a POV problem.
• undone (22:24, 19 October 2008). After having explained where the references are and why I'm not inserting them in the article (message in your talk page (22:24, 19 October 2008)) I revert again in good faith. Verbatim, my message says the following:

"All the sourcing to the statement are in Integration with Britain Party. I don't think that such an irrelevant fact requires plenty of sources as, I've told you, I can't see the POV in the statement"

That is, the sources are in the appropriate article, which is one-click far from the article we're dealing with, and in the same sentence (Integration With Britain Party). As I told you, I don't think that such an irrelevant sentence requires to include two references to an already overheaded article, when the whole of the issue is properly sourced in the relevant article (I might be wrong, of course)

• rv uncited (22:29, 19 October 2008). Here, you drop finally your POV argument but, without contacting me in any way. As I've told you where the references are, the sensible behaviour would have been something like: "Well, I see your sources but they should be anyway in the History of Gibraltar" or something like that. Instead, you put on the edge of breaking the 3RR, left me a message (after your edition) that has nothing to do with the article. For example:

"As is usual you assume my reverts were bad faith and blindly revert to edit war again". Well, I haven't assumed any bad faith (however I recognize that being accused of POV editing without explanation is annoying). With regard to blind edit war... well, it's you the one that has almost broken the 3RR, in spite of my explanations.

"I also note the offensive comments you made about me on Redcoat's Talk Page". So it seems that this issue has nothing to do with my editions, but with an alleged offensive comment I made. Well, I don't think that engaging in edit warring with futile arguments only because you think that I made offensive comments about you is constructive at all. Moreover, a) if I made such offensive statements, I sincerely apologize; b) however, my comments about you are not offensive at all AFAIK. Here you have my comments: Justin has done the same in the past and I didn't see a similar warning from anyone. As RedCoat was accusing me of recruiting people, I simply stated that you did the same and therefore, his warning on me looked like double standards. Justin's friends have done the same and I haven't seen a similar warning. Here we were talking about offensive comments against Gibraltarians in my talk page, without any protest by myself. Again, I simply stated that your friend did the same. To sum up, I can't see any offensive comment by myself.

The rest of your message is simply pointless.

However, as you're gratuitously almost broken the 3RR I must report it if you go on. Have a nice day --Ecemaml (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Ah there we have it, I inadvertently breach 3RR by mistake and you rush to report me. You deliberately breach it and I chose not to. What a lofty view there is from the moral high ground. Sleep well. Justin talk 23:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for information, I'm half-Spanish on my mother's side, so no I'm not anti-Spanish. And you did threaten to report me for 3RR but I guess my self-revert got in the way. Tonight's little contretemps could easily have been avoided had you supplied a citation. However, you did breach 3RR, quite deliberately and I chose not to report you and refused to edit war any further. So I intend to polish my halo and climb the wooden hill to the land of nod. Goodnight. Justin talk 23:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. RedCoat10 • talk 14:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to point the finger at anyone, as both parties have had their share of name-calling. I also won't comment on User:Gibnews (or indeed any other editor) behind their back. If you have a grievance with an editor, I suggest you take it up with them, politely. This kind of a reaction is not exactly helpful. As I've said in the past, it is important that we all stay cool when the editing gets hot.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to inform you that: You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on History of Gibraltar and that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. RedCoat10 • talk 16:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR violation

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at History of Gibraltar. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a fact that I actually violated the rule. I did it in a very stupid way, simply forgetting that I had reverted three times in the last 24-hour time, and in good faith (I reverted in good faith by fourth time after explaining that the reason given in the last edition was wrong). I wasn't be given the opportunity to undo my last edition. See second point below. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Rationale to ask for unblocking:

1. Even if got into edit warring I was careful to include two templates: {{disputed}} and {{neutrality}}. That is, if you see the diff between the edition prior to the edit war and my last reversion, you'll see that apart from a cite, I've included them in order to highlight that there is a disagreement (BTW, they're even removed twice: here, here — by the author of the 3RR report). I didn't aim to hide the fact that there was a disagreement.
2. My fourth reversion (here) was done in good faith. RedCoat10 argued to revert my edition that "most of (the material I was restoring) was originally added by yourself on the 16 September 2008". I showed him that he was wrong providing the diff of my editions in September 16 related to the disputed paragraph. It was at 15:57, 20 October 2008. I repeat that I did it in good faith as I thought I had refuted the reason provided by RedCoat10 to revert my edition. RedCoat replied me at 16:40, 20 October 2008, with a warning on my undeliberate violation of the 3RR and, without giving me the opportunity of undoing my reversion, went fast to report me 25 minutes later (at 17:06, 20 October 2008). Sorry, but I have to earn my living and I cannot be constantly connected (I'd like but I can't). I don't see this a fair behaviour by RedCoat10. I repeat: I did break the 3RR. I did it in an undeliberate way and in good faith but, without any opportunity to rectify, I was reported and blocked. I don't think I behave in the most proper way, but I wasn't the only.
3. RedCoat10 has used as evidence a statement on "multiple editors". Yes, there are several editors, but all support the same point of view. RedCoat10 has repeatedly supported Gibnews as a fellow countryman (here when I reported that Gibnews was breaking wikipetiquette; here when Gibnews' site was reported as not reliable or here and here when I asked for explainations about why the introduction of factual inaccuracies and the repeated violation of elementary civility guidelines seemed to be allowed). Justin A Kuntz shares the same point of view (something that is not, of course, a bad or forbidden thing) and therefore has tried to recruit people against me or left unattended personal attacks on the grounds of me being an administrator of the Spanish Wikipedia. Gibraltar issues are tough, delicate, but it seems as if one of the parties plays with advantage. However, what I want to point out is not the POV that me or my "reporters" might have, but the fact that number here is not important. For obvious reasons there are more English-speaking people interested in topics related to an English-speaking territory than non-native speakers).
4. What seems strange is that there are double standards. If you see the history of Gibraltar or Telephone numbers in Gibraltar you can verify that, whenever I make an edition that Gibnews and his supporters do not like, I've been reverted and asked to get a consensus on the editions I wish to introduce. However, in History of Gibraltar I've been asked to get a consensus to revert the edition by Gibnews. I can't understand why the rules are not the same in every situation.

Best regards and many thanks to the unfortunate administrator that has dared to reach the end of this boring manifesto --Ecemaml (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Joseph Triay

The problem was that it was included under the section named external links rather than the one named references. An external link does not necessarily constitute as a reference for the article content. The reason individual citations are better is because it makes it easier for the reader to identify the reference for a particular section of the article.

FOGH Society has now been added to the list. Un saludo, --Gibmetal 77^talk 15:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)