| Revision as of 22:34, 7 December 2009 editCremallera (talk | contribs)846 edits →Sources and quotations: Personal information.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:04, 25 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (37 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{archives|title=] ]|]}} | |||
| See ], adding disruptive edits to make a point is not constructive behaviour. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 16:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == RfC: Self-government == | |||
| See ] as well, . If wanted help in dispute resolution you only had to ask. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 18:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 11:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Déjalo == | |||
| == References == | |||
| No hay nada que hacer. Un grupo de editores tiene secuestrado los artículos relacionados con Gibraltar. Son muchos, organizados, hablan mejor inglés, y jamás te dejarán introducir un cambio contrario a sus intereses. No te quemes --] (]) 22:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Gracias por las referencias. I hope they'll be useful :-) | |||
| : Sorry, but I got blocked several times when dealing with them. So I'm not keen on dealing with the same guys again. Furthermore, it'd took too many time and time is the only thing I don't have now. There have been many times trying to make Gibraltar-related articles not being POV and it's been useless. Sorry again. --] (]) 14:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| It's a pity not to see you soon here, but it's possibly more fruitful to invest time in real life than in this virtual battleground. Best regard and hope to see you soon. --] (]) 13:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: Ecemaml got blocked for edit warring and got more leeway than most do, I could have reported him for a ] violation but chose not to (though funnily enough leapt at the chance to report me when I accidentally over stepped the mark - shame I'd realised and self-reverted). Neither was he interested in making articles NPOV, rather he seemed more interested in inserting a pro-Spanish slant. | |||
| == Arbcom case == | |||
| :: As regards your comments on progress, its only starting to make progress when you've actually tried to engage with other editors. Think about that. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 14:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— | |||
| :::Hi Cremallera. Just in case you find Ecemaml's words hard to believe, I confirm that it is a complete waste of time trying to neutralise any Gibraltar related article. In fact, it is impossible even to add any bit of information that the group of users who literally own the article may dislike. I have been watching the development of the article for a long time now and there has been a large number of users who have tried it before unsuccessfully. So my advice is to stay away from them and instead join Misplaced Pages Spanish to extend and improve these articles, where you will have a much more pleasurable experience of wikpedia. Best regards, --] (]) 21:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * ]; | |||
| * ]. | |||
| Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice --> ]<sup>]</sup> 13:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I know, it doesn't matter how many sources you provide. But look at it from this angle: the article is so blatantly biased that anyone with less than the average IQ or a little understanding of English would realised it, which shows what kind of ''organization'' is draining our economy. On the other hand, it is a pitty that the English wikipedia is discredited in this way, but there are so many articles that it is vey difficult to control all of them and, unfortunately, for the rest of the world Gibraltar is only an insignificant rock not worth it of investing time and efforts to write a quality article about it. --] (]) 10:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom case has opened == | |||
| :::::What a crock, the article is not biased in the slightest, what you mean is that editors have kept the article balanced and not allowed you to slant the article toward a pro-Spanish viewpoint. And fact tags added outside of policy and for POV reasons can and will be removed. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 09:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ]. | |||
| ::::::Not that I share everything that Té & Kriptonita has said, but Gibraltar articles clearly aren't neutral. At least, they lack the Spanish POV as you recognise by "not allowing the pro-Spanish viewpoint" (even if it is sourced and has been included -ephemerally- by many editors). That is: you include the legitimate Gibraltarian viewpoint and sistematically remove the Spanish one. You might not share it, but it exists and should be represented as such. ] (]) 10:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ <span style="color:#FF0099;">Amory</span><span style="color:#555555;"><small> ''(] • ] • ])''</small></span> 16:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: :-D Justin is very funny. You can take a look at any of my editions in Gibraltar-related articles (see ] for instance). You can verify what Spanish propaganda means for him. Don't laugh too much. --] (]) 12:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| ==The Neverending Story== | |||
| Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. Your evidence on the above page stands at over 1300 words. The limit is 1000. Please refactor it within the next 24 hours or a clerk will do it for you. Regards, ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 13:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| No the Spanish POV is represented and is not excluded. What is not acceptable is removing legitimately sourced material because you feel it shows Spain in a bad light. Note there was no attempt in the edit to influence readers along a particular line, it was for the reader to draw their own conclusions. However, you would suppress that information in an attempt to whitewash the Spanish Government stance. Similarly you're deliberately adding quotes out of context to twist the words into a meaning they never had. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 10:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :935 word I make it - thank you very much for attending to it so quickly, it's much appreciated. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 16:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ] is already on my watch list. Notice, that I didn't revert you. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 10:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :999 words I make it now, so good work! :-) If you need anymore help or advice, please don't hesitate to contact me. I can assure you that you're not being a pain! ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 19:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted: | |||
| :Come on, Justin! I haven't removed anything. I just added a verification failed tag onto a dead link and added (yes, added) 2 references to the article, quoting the exact wording chosen by both the Gibraltarian Officials & the European Court of Justice in a declaration that backed Britain's position over the Tireless case (not the Spanish one). I really don't see how could you consider that I "attempted to whitewash the Spanish Government stance". Cheers. ] (]) 10:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing ] or other articles concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioral standards or editorial processes of Misplaced Pages in connection with these articles. | |||
| ::Please don't insult my intelligence there are reams of text devoted to removing any reference to nuclear vessels at Rota. The Spanish Government in that respect was being unequivocably hypocritical and you did attempt to expunge material in that respect. And the comment taken out of context is to infer that the UK and Gibraltar Government did not put in place any radiological safeguards, because they didn't have to; the situation is completely different. The dead link included an access date and simply because links are now dead do not make them invalid as a source if they are properly dated. The wayback machine can be used to confirm the material. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 10:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *] imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently ]) or the Arbitration Committee. | |||
| *{{user|Gibnews}} is topic-banned from editing the ] article and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for one year. Should Gibnews return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so. | |||
| *Gibnews is strongly warned that nationally or ethnically offensive comments are prohibited on Misplaced Pages and that substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the site, will be imposed without further warning in the event of further violations. | |||
| *{{user|Justin A Kuntz}} is topic-banned from editing ] and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for three months. Should Justin A Kuntz return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so. | |||
| *{{user|Ecemaml}} is admonished for having, at times, assumed bad faith and edited tendentiously concerning the history and political status of Gibraltar. | |||
| *Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Misplaced Pages policies such as ] of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a ], remaining ] and ], utilizing ] for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to ] where necessary. | |||
| *Any editor who is closely associated with a particular source or website relating to the subject of ] or any other article is reminded to avoid editing that could be seen as an actual or apparent attempt to promote that source or website or to give it undue weight over other sources or website in an article's references or links. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, it may be best in these circumstances to mention the existence of the source or website on the talkpage, and allow the decision whether to include it in the article to made by others. | |||
| ''For the Arbitration Committee'', --] (]) 23:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't intend to insult your intelligence, don't be so cocky, Justin. The nuclear vessels at Rota bit was totally unreferenced for 3 months (enough time to find a reference, don't ya think?). ] clearly states that editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. You may not like it, but that's how it is. ] (]) 10:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Help requested == | |||
| ::::That my compromise edit (a fully sourced edit) was not put into the article for 3 months was entirely down to your refusal to agree to it. The fact that edit remained in the article was entirely down to your pig-headed refusal to accept the compromise proposed; so forgive me if I take your feigned concern for wiki policies with a rather large pinch of salt. You may not like it, but that's how it is. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 11:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Following your very sensible suggestion I have merged ] into ]. I think that I have followed all the steps in , leaving only one thing: fixing double redirects. At I find quite a lot and my lunch hour won't allow me to do them all. Can you help me to go through the list, leaving out talk pages of course? ] (]) 15:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Because your compromise edit still included the nuclear vessels thing, while lacking a reference for it. Please, reread the , and let's not begin another here to no tangible gain. See you. ] (]) 11:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Courtesy Notice == | |||
| ::::::It was supported by multiple citations, claiming white is black with the light off doesn't change it. '']'' <small>'']''</small> | |||
| The topic ban is not a blanket excuse, please stop following my contributions. You and your friends are getting creepy. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 11:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Hi there! Long time no see... '''Not even one''' citation supported that submarine vessels are being repaired at Rota in recent times (that is, the last 30 years). And your inability to find a reference to back it up in 3 months says it all. Cheers, Justin. ] (]) 13:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Which I have respected, a sub putting into Gibraltar 10 years ago is very oblique even for "broadly construed". Your message on the talk page strikes me as intimidating. You would have been better served querying an arb before trying to "lecture". Now again please leave me alone, I trust I won't have to ask again. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 11:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Dispute resolution survey== | |||
| ::::::::You are being frankly ridiculous my compromise edit did not refer to the repair of nuclear vessels. If you have to delibertaely distort my contributions the my assumption of good faith is finally expended. It was fully supported by sources. You can deny it till you're blue in the face but again, frankly it makes you look like an utter ]. Congratulations I had pegged you as a reasonable contributor, you've managed to convince me otherwise. Goodbye. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 13:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="background-color: #CCFFFF; border: 4px solid #3399cc; width:100%" cellpadding="5" | |||
| | ] | |||
| <big>'''Dispute Resolution – ''Survey Invite'''''</big> | |||
| ---- | |||
| Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. | |||
| '''Please click to participate.'''<br> | |||
| Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. | |||
| ---- | |||
| <small>You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated ]. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 02:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| |} | |||
| == Clarification motion == | |||
| :::::::::Hi again! Look, other wikipedia articles which don't refer just incidentally to the issue but directly, like the ] article state: "''The first incarnation of Task Force 64 consisted of nuclear-powered submarines armed with long-range strategic missiles (SSBN). Until the end of the 1970s these ships were homeported in Naval Station Rota, Spain. The mission was strategic deterrence. '''It is extremely unlikely that any SSBNs are actually still assigned or operate with CNE/C6F in the Mediterranean'''''". I don't need to be blue in the face, Justin. | |||
| A case (]) in which you were involved has been modified by {{oldid2|631252824|Motion|motion}} which changed the wording of the ] to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --]] 21:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::The edit that '''you proposed''' mentioned the nuclear vessels: "''The Government of Gibraltar has accused Spain of using this incident as an excuse for creating a dispute over Gibraltar, since there are more severe environmental problems in the Bay and the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is actually used to provide support for units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet, '''including nuclear powered vessels''', without any complaint''". . | |||
| :::::::::The edit that '''you finally made''' don't, and that's why I haven't objected to it. And ''thanks'' for calling me "utter dick", that's always a desirable behaviour from an adult person. Cheers. ] (]) 13:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Thanks for reminding me, the article most certainly does now and its sourced. And there is more than one type of nuclear submarine I was not simply talking about boomers. And I was referring to a wiki essay, the clue was the wiki link. Thanks for the "fat bitch" comment, always a "desirable behaviour from an adult person". Once again you have to raise the temperature again without reason and without productivity. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 14:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::First "utter dick" and now "fat bitch"? What are you teaching in Gibraltarian schools those days? Your now says "''and the base located in Rota, Cádiz, is actually used to provide support to units of the U.S. Sixth Fleet without any complaint. The U.S. Sixth Fleet includes nuclear vessels such as aircraft carriers of the Nimitz class as part of CTF-60 and nuclear submarines as part of CTF-64. USN vessels also routinely carry nuclear weapons and official US policy is to neither confirm nor deny their presence''". Of course this is factually true, but those nuclear vessels aren't repaired at Rota ''and you know it'', so you keep inserting misleading statements into articles to enforce your POV. U.S. 6th Fleet comprises conventional vessels also, but those dock at Gibraltar, I guess. | |||
| :::::::::::It's like saying that Gibraltar is an Off-shore Financial Centre. And Off-shore Financial Centres are used by mafia and terrorist networks. And hoping that the reader will think "therefore, Gibraltar is used to finance organised crime and terrorism". That would be a fallacy, just like your addition to the article. | |||
| :::::::::::See you, Justin. ] (]) 14:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::See and to quote "Pa tí la perra gorda." how original. And by the way you could very well say that but in the interests of ] you would have to point out that Spanish allegations have been thoroughly investigated by financial authorities and been found to be utterly without foundation. Hasn't stopped the Spanish Government persisting with those untrue allegations has it? That is in no way equivalent to the USN navy ships that routinely include nuclear weapons as part of their arsenal using Rota, or the fact that the 6th fleet uses Rota. Those happen to be true. And I am perfectly within my rights to remove foul language from MY TALK PAGE, do not revert again. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 15:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::What you deem "foul language" just happens to be a Spanish proverb. On the other hand, you have to provide a source when you state "USN navy ships that routinely include nuclear weapons as part of their arsenal using Rota". I will repeat again what I've said to you previously: the source you used to defend your POV stated that "''the base is able to provide invaluable support to both US sixth Fleet units'' (...)", and since the US 6th fleet comprises nuclear vessels, therefore you infer that nuclear vessels dock there, '''which is a fallacy'''. Cheers, Justin. ] (]) 15:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::My, as you know, limited Spanish translates that as "you fat bitch" and, again as you know, a source has been provided. There is no logical fallacy, you're attempting to use a sophism to expunge comments you dislike. Now you can repeat the same illogical argument ad nauseum, it doesn't change the fact the edit is properly sourced and you're censoring comments for POV reasons. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 16:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::There ''was'' a logical fallacy. A source was needed. Narson provided it in 1 hour. I wasn't asking the impossible, was I? ] (]) 16:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::A source was already provided, you simply chose to reject it. I see no further point in trying to communicate with you, you're being obstructive for no reason. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 17:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::That has been nice, Justin, very nice. I'd preffer to discuss with a wall. Cheers ] (]) 20:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::PS: Dear reader, if you are really interested in this discussion, there is some more although it's been erased, which is fine, albeit rearranging my own user talk page without changing a single comma . ] (]) 11:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::Re-arranging a talk page is frowned upon, it changes the narrative of dicussions and gives a misleading picture. Deleting comments is a perfectly acceptable alternative. If you wish to try and infer there is any more than that, well thats entirely down to you. It is however noticeable you always select the path that creates the most tension. Bye for now, I can't say its been pleasant, because it wasn't. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 13:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::Neither I am really pleased. Inconsistencies aside, what I really don't like is you not telling me in the first place. See you. ] (]) 14:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::::::::::::So asking someone else to explain it, as you interpret anything I say in the most negative light possible is, well interpreted in a negative light. Fabulous. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 09:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::::::::::::Justin! I don't think you are such an evil person, really! But just like you perceive my comments as "''the path that creates the most tension''", I read yours in the same way. But, hey, we've got an edit in progress. Let's focus on it. Have a nice day (sincerely). ] (]) 09:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Talk Page comments in Spanish== | |||
| ] I noticed that you have posted comments {{#if:|to the page ]}} in a language other than English. When on the English-language Misplaced Pages, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:uw-english --> '']'' <small>'']''</small> 00:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR warning == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:History of Gibraltar|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> '']'' <small>'']''</small> 15:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I appear to be engaged in an edit war ''in your opinion''. It's quite funny how the editor who is discussing with me and also warns me about it. ] (]) 21:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, Cremallera, I guess that you've meet the usual guys. You will simply loose any "battle" you engage in. They are more and therefore, the 3RR never applies to them. I don't dare to take a look at ], but possibly, for instance, the mention to the interpretation of the demolition of La Linea fortifications during the Peninsular Was has disappeared. The problem is that fighting for neutralizing Gibraltar-related articles is a time-consuminig activity and I'm currently deeply involved in the Spanish Misplaced Pages so it would be difficult to help. Sorry to say that. It's a pity that Gibraltar-related articles are a black-spot in the POV principles of Misplaced Pages, but it's so. If you're being harassed as it seems, I suggest you to escalate the problem up to the arbitration commitee. Unfortunately, it's a lengthy path, since all the steps must be followed. Good luck. --] (]) 12:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Creo que voy a echarte una mano == | |||
| BTW, a "perra chica" was a 0.10 pesetas coin, wasn't it? (in the same way, a "perra gorda" was 0.25). Best regards --] (]) 00:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :XD Yes (0,05 & 0,10 pesetas respectively). I've already explained to them, and provided a link to the . I think they have a sufficient grasp of the Spanish language to understand the article and won't think anymore that I 've called them "fat bitches". Unimportant communication problems. Cheers ] (]) 08:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Welcome back == | |||
| Hola Cremallera, welcome back to the playground. Hope it ends better that in the previous time. --] (]) 16:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : You'll see that things are more or less the same :-) --] (]) 18:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Hail, my sockpuppet == | |||
| Hola sockpuppet mío ;-) | |||
| May I suggest to ask for a verification just to show how ridiculous are Gibnews statements? It's up to you. If you don't wish, I can do it. On the other hand, I've noticed that your English is rather better than mine (not that difficult, I must admit :-)). Can you please, if you have time, have a look at ]? I've just created it, but possibly it can be enhanced from a grammar and style point of view? Best regards and thank you for your warning --] (]) 14:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Gracias, campeón!!! :-) | |||
| : Just consider that, if your English is supposedly not that good, how could be mine? --] (]) 23:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Català? Well, I can read it quite well thanks to... my translations from viquipèdia to the Spanish Misplaced Pages. However, I can't speak or, worse, write it at all :-( --] (]) 23:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Thank you for your warning. Fortunately, it's game was rather obvious and no further reversions from me were needed. When you have a time, please, copyedit ]. You did it quite well with Astorga y Céspedes. --] (]) 22:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, Cremallera, thank you for your warning but I just wanted to make it clear that Gibraltar (as any dependent territory, regardless of its degree of self-government) has no territorial waters. The territorial waters are of the sovereign state they depend on. You're right in the sense that the redaction could have been more precise: "Gibraltar, as any other dependent territory, is not a subject of the Public International Law". Therefore, it cannot sign international treaties, as for example the Convention of the Sea, that defines territorial waters. On the other hand, are you meaning that you're not a sensible guy ;-)? Best regards and thank you again --] (]) 17:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Hello, when you have some time... could you have also a look at ]? Thank you --] (]) 17:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Thank you == | |||
| Your efforts with my poorly written articles are really appreciated :-) Muchas gracias --] (]) 21:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : No problem :-) I didn't understand it in the wrong way. I know that my English, though more or less understandable, is much enhanceable. I'm only used to write and read technical stuff and therefore, my abilities in writing more literary texts are not that good. A careful copyediting of my articles was something I've been always looking for. Again, gracias por todo. --] (]) 21:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC) PS: I see that my previous message lacks a smiley :-) I'm including one with this edition. | |||
| == Absent == | |||
| Hola Cremallera, I'll be off for one or two days... familiar emergency. A wikibreak is unfortunately needed. Hope everything will be OK while off. Un abrazo --] (]) 21:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Sources and quotations == | |||
| Hola Cremallera, I'm beginning to organize some of my material. As a first step, I'm including some interesting quotations from my sources in ]. Enjoy them and, if you need further information about a specific issue, I'll provide the info in there. Un abrazo --] (]) 23:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Courtesy == | |||
| Just a quick note but if you're going to make notes like this one , its common courtesy to let the others know on the talk page. Further, we're not content to have the article locked and have been actively trying to resolve the problem. I do note we got further when the edit wars were removed as a destructive distraction. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 23:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You're quite correct I should have said something. My apologies. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 00:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::For info, I have preferred it when we can discuss constructively, seems like a lot of silly comments have been directed at each other for so long that its difficult to just stop. I am trying. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 00:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Re Gibraltar mediation == | |||
| Thank you for your message. I did see your post in the ANI thread and meant to respond, but it slipped my mind while I was dealing with other stuff. Sorry about that. What I would have explained was that ] insists that when admins protect an article, we do so on the current version. If we changed the article we'd be implying one version was preferred over another, and that's not helpful for obvious reasons including our staying neutral in the dispute. I realise one article was protected in a version you object to, but the other was protected in your version so I concluded it all evens out (see ] for a humorous - if sarcastic - take on this). | |||
| Regarding your request to comment in the mediation process, unfortunately I don't have the time at present to get more involved. I am happy to answer any requests for admin action, such as unprotecting the pages or making consensus edits to them, and of course if I see what I believe to be personal attacks, incivility or edit-warring I will sanction the accounts involved (as would any uninvolved admin). If the mediation seems to have stalled your best recourse might be to try some of the other measures on ] (such as request for comment, formal mediation or as a last resort, Arbcom). However, out of courtesy you should probably discuss this with Atama first to see if they agree with your assessment. ]<sup>]</sup> 12:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, any or all of those will do (I've been called much worse here!) ]<sup>]</sup> 22:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:04, 25 February 2023
 My Talk Archives |
RfC: Self-government
Talk:Gibraltar#RfC:_Self-government Guy (Help!) 11:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
References
Gracias por las referencias. I hope they'll be useful :-)
It's a pity not to see you soon here, but it's possibly more fruitful to invest time in real life than in this virtual battleground. Best regard and hope to see you soon. --Ecemaml (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Arbcom case
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Gibraltar and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, EyeSerene 13:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom case has opened
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Evidence
Hello Cremallera. Your evidence on the above page stands at over 1300 words. The limit is 1000. Please refactor it within the next 24 hours or a clerk will do it for you. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 13:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- 935 word I make it - thank you very much for attending to it so quickly, it's much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- 999 words I make it now, so good work! :-) If you need anymore help or advice, please don't hesitate to contact me. I can assure you that you're not being a pain! Ryan Postlethwaite 19:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
- Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Gibraltar or other articles concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioral standards or editorial processes of Misplaced Pages in connection with these articles.
- Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard) or the Arbitration Committee.
- Gibnews (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing the Gibraltar article and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for one year. Should Gibnews return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
- Gibnews is strongly warned that nationally or ethnically offensive comments are prohibited on Misplaced Pages and that substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the site, will be imposed without further warning in the event of further violations.
- Justin A Kuntz (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing Gibraltar and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for three months. Should Justin A Kuntz return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
- Ecemaml (talk · contribs) is admonished for having, at times, assumed bad faith and edited tendentiously concerning the history and political status of Gibraltar.
- Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Misplaced Pages policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary.
- Any editor who is closely associated with a particular source or website relating to the subject of Gibraltar or any other article is reminded to avoid editing that could be seen as an actual or apparent attempt to promote that source or website or to give it undue weight over other sources or website in an article's references or links. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, it may be best in these circumstances to mention the existence of the source or website on the talkpage, and allow the decision whether to include it in the article to made by others.
For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Help requested
Following your very sensible suggestion I have merged Gibraltar constitutional referendum, 2006 into Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006. I think that I have followed all the steps in Help:Merger, leaving only one thing: fixing double redirects. At I find quite a lot and my lunch hour won't allow me to do them all. Can you help me to go through the list, leaving out talk pages of course? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Courtesy Notice
The topic ban is not a blanket excuse, please stop following my contributions. You and your friends are getting creepy. Justin talk 11:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Which I have respected, a sub putting into Gibraltar 10 years ago is very oblique even for "broadly construed". Your message on the talk page strikes me as intimidating. You would have been better served querying an arb before trying to "lecture". Now again please leave me alone, I trust I won't have to ask again. Justin talk 11:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
 Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Cremallera. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 02:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
Clarification motion
A case (Gibraltar) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)