Talk:Úbeda
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
Previous discussions:
- 1 Requested move March 2005: Úbeda to Ubeda || 2 Links in the text || 3 Intro || 4 Including a Ubeda without diacritics || 5 Talk page discussion on page move || 6 Let's move the page back to Úbeda || 7 Global policy versus individual article choices || 8 Is including an ASCII version worthwhile? || 9 Requested move October 2005: Ubeda to Úbeda || 9.1 Comments || 9.2 Moved from Ubeda to Úbeda || 10 Ubeda and Úbeda isn't the same || 11 IPA || 12 Vandalsim and page protection
[edit] Opposition from ICOMOS
I don't know why is someone writing about "opposition fron ICOMOS", there was no opposition, although there was opposition from the english representant. I have all the interventions, but in spanish.
Guervos 09:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- The process was not easy for the town, and ICOMOS did come up with some objections[1]. However, it is probably too strong to suggest that they flat-out objected. --Gareth Hughes 16:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I have read the ICOMOS evaluation, and says nothing about opposition. You can read : Recommendation with respect to inscription That the property be deferred subject to redefinition a verification of the nominated areas and buffer zones.
This is not exactly opposition, is only a recomendation to delay the inscription.
Guervos 22:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ubeda
From my talk page:
- Thank you for your interest in the article Úbeda. You will be aware that this article has suffered from the vandalism of one user. Any issue you have about the name of the town should be taken to the article's talk page. If you decide to make edits to the article about the name of the town, you are not only participating in a rather lame edit war with the vandal, but also giving the vandal reason to keep on being silly. If you wish to make a change, suggest it on the talk page: there is already sufficient consensus to keep the article as it is. Thank you. --Gareth Hughes 16:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
--Philip Baird Shearer 16:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Without rehashing old arguments there is little more for me to say that I have not already said previously,(and is now archived), other than to say that:
- The wrong version of the article was protected last week because it was the vandalised version.
- Where is your consensus?
- Should one walk away from an article because one person imposes their will by vandalism? Philip Baird Shearer 16:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- Please read wrong version, and realise that it's ironic. I see little difference between the last two edits made by Philip Baird Shearer and the vandal. After my message on the talk page, you went straight ahead and did what I had asked you not to do. You know that this has been a difficult issue, yet you ask me, who has not edited the page recently, to show consensus. However, you apperently need none to make any change you see fit. Philip, don't try to make a point here. --Gareth Hughes 17:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- I've just noticed that your last edit, made against my advice, has fuelled the edit war further. --Gareth Hughes 17:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
It's incorrect to call it the "vandalized" version, since it isn't simple vandalism, although it is legitimate to call this person a vandal, since he's using sockpuppets in a very abusive manner to support one side in an editing dispute. This puts other people who happen to support that particular side in a very uncomfortable position and poisons the whole debate. -- Curps 20:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I respect your position on the other side of this debate which I will come back to in a moment. By vandalised version I ment a version of the page which was created by a vandal, not the content.
- Not once during all the edits which I have made to this page have I argued for anything other than both versions of the word to appear on the page[2]. You once wrote: "It's probably better to use the version with diacritics as the page title, because the absence of diacritics bothers the people who care about them a lot more than their presence bothers the people who don't care about them." My strongest argument against placing articles under a diacritic version, is because some people do not think that common English spellings should not appear anywhere on the page then remove all Anglicized versions, but few people who wish to see a word under the Anglicized version object to a native version appearing as well. If you argue against placing the common English spelling on the page I would like to persuade you with a misquote "it is probably better to include both versions of the word on the page as the absence of one version bothers the people who care about that version more than the inclusion bothers the people who don't care about a version." Philip Baird Shearer 07:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
