User talk:Rubén Mar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Rubén Mar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! CitiCat ♫ 18:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the welcome and tips!

I´d like to now split the article into the two language versions.

¿Should I go ahead, and remove the "Delete" template and do this?

Regards Rubén Mar 10:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for your personal essays but is a collaborative encyclopaedia, thus you must respect it's times for discussion as well as respect the voting, IMO your article is a mere rant, as the ones done by the pro-gender violence people many times. just leave things like they are and let others collaborate. Zape82 10:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Zape82, that´s very insulting saying "your article is a mere rant, as the ones done by the pro-gender violence people".

You are a Political Science student studying in Madrid, right? And from your personal page I see that you may be aligned, politically-speaking, to the left, as is the current government, is that correct?

I notice you removed from José Luis R. Zapatero´s page the addition regarding his party´s achievement of creating these courts, without good reason IMHO. If the gay marriage Law was an acceptable achievement for you, why not the Courts for Violence Against Women?

Do you find it a problem to read comments from Spain´s General Council of Judicial Power (CGPD) that are concerned that these Courts give rise to Constitutional issues?

This article is a combination of basic facts, references to the Court´s basic purpose, relevant Law, articles of the Constitution, and links to groups, firstly, that support the Courts, and then those that are concerned about the Constitutional issues. Is that not the truth? ¿No es la verdad?

¿Where is the "rant" in my article, please tell me and I´ll remove it immediately?

I would really welcome contructive comments should you make one. Rubén Mar 10:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I was a law and political science student and yes I am aligned with the left but not with the current government and just to clarify:

  • Your article is a rant, completely POV including personal comments, where you dont explain the motives of the law and the creation of such specialised courts on gender violence, ie: more than 60 women killed by their "significant" other in 2007 (and the year hasn't ended), more than 40 years when killing your wife was seen as acceptable, years of silence (the first report to the congress of deputies on gender violence in Spain stated that the number of women victims of their husbands could be more than four times the number of cases denounced). Minimising the problem of gender violence is condoning it and being pro-gender violence.
  • Specialised Courtrooms on Violence against women are Specialised courtrooms of the Ordinary Criminal Courts" (Juzgados de los Penal) not independent Courts as the "[[Audiencia Nacional]]" and its associated courts (JCI, JCP, JCVP) intended to judge only specific crimes and where appeal is possible only to the Supreme Court. Where IMHO if it continues to exist is where this trials should take place.
  • CGPJ opinion was done by one vote difference due to its politization and it is not a constitutional body authorised to speak or question the constitutionality of the legislation, that should be done only by those authorised, you simply don't say that.
  • Including an authors note is highly POV and uncollaborative.
  • Not to mention the quality of the article.

Zape82 11:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree totally, and I will explain why point for point.

I do detail the motives for the law "to provide protection for women from domestic violence" and other such comments. I even reprint the article from Amnesty on how women were so underprotected in the past!!! The deplorable fact, as you say, that 60 women were killed by men in Spain in 2007, does not allow the suppression of the right of freedome of free speech by the largely legal groups that claim, and I use the word claim, there is a constitutional conflict in allowing one group of society legal powers over another group. The article provides facts and opposing views, I do not give my opinion, take a look at it one more time please. Its lucky you´re not a student of road traffic because maybe you´d lobby to close the motorways in Spain because there were 3,016 road deaths in 2006, and around 4,000 last year! Not 60 or 70, but THREE THOUSAND PEOPLE DIED!! My opinion is that this issue needs, and that it is healthy, to air it, in a balanced way. If there are any weaknesses or imbalances in this article, lets improve it, not erase it as you have requested. I have removed my Editors Comments text about the two main concepts, 1. that the Courts are needed and must stay, and the other 2. that the Law and Courts may be conflicting constitutional right of a specific social group, and changes need be considered - I gave both views. Anyway, I removed those points in case it would be viewed as "leading". ¿But why are you so critical, why not helpful? You even criticise the quality of the article! :) In addition, I have spoken with several lawyers, some friends of mine, and police, and many have raised their concerns as to the situation, and I think it is widely known in Spain that there are problems that need to be considered:- its a public issue, and could soon be a European issue which makes it worth improving, not erasing! Rubén Mar 12:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mulitple accounts - blocking

While it is easy to create alternative accounts, we have a policy against their abuse and misuse. It has been confirmed that you have used multiple acounts. I can't see that you had previously been aware of the policy. The alternative account was used in the same location as the original account, which is a violation of the policy. Accordingly, your alternative account has been blocked indefinitely, but since you may have been unaware that its use was unacceptable you are only being blocked for a day. GRBerry 22:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is untrue. If you are referring to vivaflor, she lives is a real person, and if you like, you can talk to her on the phone or email her; she has her own distinct opinions.
My laptop logs me on automatically, usually, but one evening it didn´t, and I made some normal corrections logged off, so it shoed my IP address.
It is a malicious untruth.
In any case, what´s the problem here? The article is factual and represents all views.
That´s ther real issue, and instead of deleting the site, marking it up for deletion, trying to block me as a user, you people should, IMHO, be indicating the areas of proplem within the article, not trying to cover up the facts. Rubén Mar (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is on the internet there is no good way to tell the difference between two people using the same internet connection, and one person making two accounts. Therefore when we see two accounts editing the same article and they have the same internet connection (as confirmed by Checkuser, we have to assume it is a single person abusing multiple accounts. If it really is just your friend, she can make a new account, and either refrain from editing the same articles as you, or edit on a different internet connection.
As for the problems with your article, people have mentioned that already. But in case you missed it, the problem is that it contains a lot of analysis which is not directly supported by your sources such as the sections "Harsh Punishments", ""Zero Tolerance" TV Campaign", and "Statistical Analysis of Domestic Violence in Spain". Stuff like that contradicts Wikipedia's policies of No original research and Neutral point of view. Additionally, the article has a lot of quotes and excerpts which usually does not belong in articles except as a reference.
People don't want to delete the article because it is a bad topic. It's actually a good topic. But they're worried that the article requires too much work to clean up and that nobody will ever clean it up. I made a start by deleting sections that seem to violate policy. If you want to help, you can look at out Manual of style and try to make your article conform to the style used in the rest of Wikipedia. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on my talk page. Adiós y buena suerte. —dgiestc 00:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Zape82 18:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replied

I have replied to your message. —dgiestc 18:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)