Santiago.M.Ferreiro (talk | contribs) Uruguay's formal name in English. |
Ryan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
:Santiago |
:Santiago |
||
[[User:Santiago.M.Ferreiro|Santiago.M.Ferreiro]] ([[User talk:Santiago.M.Ferreiro|talk]]) 03:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
[[User:Santiago.M.Ferreiro|Santiago.M.Ferreiro]] ([[User talk:Santiago.M.Ferreiro|talk]]) 03:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
== [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Pakistan-Israel conflict]] == |
|||
Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, [[User:Ryan Postlethwaite|'''<font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl</font>et</font>hw</font>ai</font>te</font>''']] 17:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:07, 8 January 2008
Re: signature
Hi there! I use a template in my userspace to generate my signature. Normally, you're not allowed to use templates in signatures, but I use template substitution to get around it. What you have to do is create your own template in the vein of mine, and then use a raw signature of {{subst:User:Pedro Gonnet/sig}}
or whatever. You can format your timestamp using the variables outlined here. The only difference is, instead of signing with ~~~~
, you'll have to sign with ~~~
. The only other thing is that you should add yourself to Category:Users who have opted out of automatic signing, or SineBot will start duplicating your timestamp. If you need any other help, just post on my talk page. Cheers! east.718 at 18:55, 10/10/2007
Signature test
Testing, pedro gonnet - talk - 11.10.2007 07:55
CfD: Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues
Hi. please help! The category Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues has been nominated for deletion. this is a category which is meant to be simply a conveneient non-partisan gathering-place for all entries which are general overviews of various issues, as opposed to being related to a specific event or location. This category, I feel, is of immense benefit to all of us who habitually edit these articles, regardless of whether we may be more affiliated with Israeli concerns or Palestinian concerns. The category's deletion is being advocated by editors who rarely edit any articles on this topic, and have luittle involvement in this topic at Wikipedia.
Your help would be greatly appreciated. please go to this category's discussion entry, and express your opinion. Hopefully, you will be willing to advocate keeping this category. thanks. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 21#Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict issues. Thanks, Sm8900 --207.10.186.39 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Boo!
Shanghai is a much better term! *edit wars!* :P Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Tztztz -- still recovering from a new-year's binge? ;) pedro gonnet - talk - 03.01.2008 10:50
- It even has a pretty decent article. :P We should use it and wikilink it just cause it IS that cool. Naw, pre-new-years binge! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, getting a head start on 2009 already? Cheers and happy 2008, pedro gonnet - talk - 03.01.2008 10:53
- It even has a pretty decent article. :P We should use it and wikilink it just cause it IS that cool. Naw, pre-new-years binge! Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
3RR violation
Please note that I have reported you at WP:3RR for edit warring on Gilad Shalit. I realize that you're not the only one participating in this disruption, but to this point you are the only one to clearly violate WP:3RR. This is especially inappropriate given your prior warning to other editors to avoid doing just this.
Given the lack of a warning prior to your reporting it may be that you are not punished for this policy violation, but please take into account the disruption you are causing to the article and realize that having to spend a few extra days on the talk page to gather support for your version of the article is not going to adversely affect the article in any substantial way. DanielC/T 17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
January 2008
{{[[Template:My last edit was at 14:32, 3 January 2008, a warning was issued on my talk page at 17:33, 3 January 2008 and I was blocked at 18:47, 3 January 2008. This is three and a half hours after my last edit to Wikipedia that day. Both editors whom I reverted (User:Jaakobou and User:Kyaa the Catlord) were active after the edits and accepted the revert, since they did not contest them. I did not consider myself to be in violation of WP:3RR since from the edit summaries in my short exchange with User:Kyaa the Catlord and in the discussion with him/her on my own User talk:Pedro Gonnet#Boo!, it is rather obvious that this was a somewhat humorous exchange. While I do not contest making three reverts in less than 24 hours, I do contest the charge of edit-warring and due also to the timing of the block (4 hours after the last revert), it seems to me to be a punitive block, which is why I ask that if be lifted. I make this request not to continue edit warring (there is a nice compromise suggestion on Gilad Shalit to which I would like to agree), but to clear my name.|My last edit was at 14:32, 3 January 2008, a warning was issued on my talk page at 17:33, 3 January 2008 and I was blocked at 18:47, 3 January 2008. This is three and a half hours after my last edit to Wikipedia that day. Both editors whom I reverted (User:Jaakobou and User:Kyaa the Catlord) were active after the edits and accepted the revert, since they did not contest them. I did not consider myself to be in violation of WP:3RR since from the edit summaries in my short exchange with User:Kyaa the Catlord and in the discussion with him/her on my own User talk:Pedro Gonnet#Boo!, it is rather obvious that this was a somewhat humorous exchange. While I do not contest making three reverts in less than 24 hours, I do contest the charge of edit-warring and due also to the timing of the block (4 hours after the last revert), it seems to me to be a punitive block, which is why I ask that if be lifted. I make this request not to continue edit warring (there is a nice compromise suggestion on Gilad Shalit to which I would like to agree), but to clear my name.]]}}
- FYI for whoever reviews this, this is the relevant report on WP:AN3. Feel free to take whatever action you feel is right (you don't need my permission if you want to modify the block - just do it.) --B (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
RfC note
please note that the RfC discussions portrayed a +5 margin towards the use of the term even when including a couple comments by a POV violator. If you still believe the result is unfair, we can open mediation regarding the dispute. otherwise, please don't revert. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Uruguay's formal name
Hi Pedro,
First of all, Happy Birthday ! I'm not new to Wikipedia and for sure not to those three basic pillars (or "golden laws"), which we apply to our own "wiki" in our intranet. The only new thing is the Username, which I decided to make it official and unique with a password that I'll remember in the future. This was not because of lack of interest in making Wiki better, but lack of time to be a full-time contributor, hence I continously forgot my username/password.
Regarding our specific topic, Uruguay's formal name, we are discussing different things. You are discussing the product (the name itself) while I'm discussing the wrong usage of the tools (the source and the language).
I can understand your position of using the name the goverment uses, but there are a couple of things are to be mentioned here. First and very important, it's wrong. There is no official name in English (that is determined by the Constitution and goverments are not entitled to change it) and the translation used is not accurate. I believe that somehow you agree this statement with your "vouch for Republic East of Uruguay". Second, it's somehow offensive. For those who we are republicans we don't accept sub-sets of republicanism. I know that being one imply accepting others opinions, and I do, but Uruguay is still a plain Republic and the name is meant to reflect that. What is an Eastern Republic? I don't know, but anyway it is not the concept behind our name. We can not be something different in English than we are in Spanish, French, German,etc. because in all these other languages the literal translation has been used. Anyone speaking more than one major European language will notice the mistake immediately if he/she has the translation in more than one language. What about those just speaking English? They don't get the right concept. It's like calling 'car' to a 'bicycle', they are going to get the wrong idea. Country names are not just 'labels', their logic works closer to a common name (it determines things, a car, a bicycle) rather than a proper name (it makes one thing different from another one being equal, Santiago and Pedro, for instance, as human beings). Spain or England are not be called 'Republics' (at least for now) because they are monarchies.
Third, but maybe the reason why I'm taking all this time. My sources are the national Constitution and the "English language construction rules" (you name it), to be known by everyone able to be reading this page. I've already explained in the discussion the construction issues implied but what is important here is that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia, a source of humanity's knowledge (as I recall from Wiki's motto or somewhere here). It is academically invalid to make data dependable to an ephimeral source. A name cannot be changed with every Foreign Affairs secretary change. A name has to be kept in time, and Uruguay has one, just 'Uruguay' or 'Republic of Uruguay', for completeness. 'Republic of Uruguay' has been used for at least 150 years, and definetely is the name how we have been known. You can check the head of the web page you suggested, of you can go to the British government's country profiles for Uruguay. Any product of the current Uruguay's Foreign Affairs office, will reflect the Secretary's assistants idea of the name. That's called cosistency.
Just a crazy idea.. Let's think that the goverment calls the country in English "The Free Encyclopaedia Republic", they can do it in the same way they did with that one. What will be your reaction? It will be the goverment's mistake and our duty to correct it, as we are the Republic itself. Anyway the name in discussion has been used only a couple of time. It doesn't set a precendent.
Mistakes are not meant to be reflected in Wikipedia, unless they are referred as that, as mistakes.
The source of the name? The Constitution. We either keep it in Spanish or we translate it to the language, following the language's rules as it has been done.
For all the written above, if you don't "Eastern of Uruguay Republic" (as I do not, it sounds awful to me), we can enter "Republic of Uruguay", which has also been used by this government, and it has been by far our historic name in English of our beloved República Oriental del Uruguay. (I bet your care on this topic has to do also with a feeling like this).
Best regards,
- Santiago
Santiago.M.Ferreiro (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)