User talk:Imalbornoz

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gibraltar. Note that the three-revert rule 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 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Justin talk 13:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

For information, the countries listed on the UN list of dependent territories was originally compiled based upon nominations by nation states. Gibraltar and other territories are listed because the UK listed them, not because the UN compiled a list as you assert. This means for example that territories such as Tibet, are not listed. It is also a fact that the territory of Gibraltar is self-governing, that the Spanish Government disputes this is immaterial. Justin talk 13:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

CANVAS

See WP:CANVAS soliciting other editors to campaign in support of your proposals is disruptive. Please stop. Justin talk 15:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please believe me: I do not even know what canvassing means. I didn't know that a newcomer could not ask for advice from more experienced editors with some interest in the article he/she is trying to edit. Then, how am I supposed to learn? Did you learn everything about WP by yourself (because asking for advice would have been disruptive)? What do you recommend then? I know what I'll do: ask you for advice. That way you will not get suspicious and will be able to prove that you are able to help a newcomer in spite of him contradicting your view (for the sake of WP itself). What would you do in my place? If someone recently inserted a very significant (unreferenced) statement in the introduction of an important article, and you thought that it was biased, and that it should be undone until a new consensus was reached? --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I don't believe your protestations of innocence. You were not asking for advice, you were trying to recruit someone you thought might be sympathetic to your position. The statement is not unreferenced, it isn't biased but what what you're trying to impose is. Justin talk 16:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is the statement referenced? --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, now that I have read about canvassing, I see that there is a difference between appropriate "friendly notice" and "inappropriatte canvassing". I would not say that just one post explicitly stating my position and asking for advice was "canvassing"... I insist, please, assume my good faith... --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And btw claiming to be a newcomer, when you have already demonstrated in-depth knowledge of wiki processes, is frankly stretching credibility. Justin talk 15:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha! Thank you very much! I don't deserve this! ;) I have only spent about 4 hours editing WP (really, I haven't had that much time during the last few years...). I hope that taking a look at my activity will bring you out of your (otherwise complimentary) mistake. --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gibraltar. Note that the three-revert rule 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 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. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. It is worth noting you have been warned about this behaviour previously. I would not be surprised if you were reported still. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability

The relevant standard for a citation is verifiability, see WP:V, provided it is a reliable source WP:RS, then it is perfectly acceptable. You cannot reject a citation simply because you don't like it. And I see we've been edit warring again.

Also please stop using my talk page as your soap box. Thank you. Justin talk 15:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I note sarcastic comments about citing Hassans as a source. They are a large firm of international lawyers based in Gibraltar, if they say Gibraltar is Gibraltar is "self-governing tax-effective, well regulated, well placed and well developed." it is more significant than anything you read in the Spanish press, You might wish to read the following link:

• http://www.iberianlawyer.com/content/view/1087/44/

--Gibnews (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Gib

You could try here [1] (but note, responders tend to reply there and won't come to the Gib talk page itself). Phrase the question concisely and neutrally, and if others there agree with you and you want to press it you will have more weight. If they agree with the others you probably should let it go. You will probably get the regular crowd following you like flies round the brown stuff. If they attempt to attack you personally with tendentious this and disruptive that, let me know. I'll add a comment in your defence. BTW if you want to see what you're letting yourself in for arguing with some of these people, see [2] [3] [4] Someone even spent their weekend writing a tool to plot a graph of the edits to show that I was tendentiously editing. [5] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Gib

Read intro of article Falkland Islands. Equally contested; could be a guide. Seb az86556 (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

ledes

Hmmm... the guideline has changed since I last saw it... it used to clearly say that ledes didn't need citations as long as the information was discussed and cited elsewhere in the article... now it hedges and says it depends on the article. In any case, I don't think we need to cite the fact that Gibraltar is self-governing, or mention the exception in the first sentence. The purpose of the opening sentence is simply to identify what the topic of the article is... in this case to say what Gibraltar is in a very broad sense.

As a way to break your stalemate... Perhaps a better solution would be to start with a geographical identification, rather than a political one... something like "Gibraltar is a peninsular mountain, located at the mouth of the Mediterranian Sea."... then, later in the lede you can mention "It is self-governing, except in matters of defense". Just a suggestion. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

CANVAS

These comments are disruptive [6] [7] Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted and which espouse a certain point of view. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus. This is your second warning. Please stop. RedCoat10 • talk 09:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, please stop posting the same thread in multiple forums per WP:MULTI. The centralised discussion should be taking place at Talk:Gibraltar. Thankyou, RedCoat10 • talk 09:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that asking for a personal opinion is CANVASsing. I also think that posting messages to two editors who have been involved in related discussions is not "indiscriminate cross-posting". I would think that CANVASsing is related to indiscriminately urging many users to participate in a discussion, isn't it? On the other hand, I would say that repeated false accusations can amount to Harassment.

Are you sure you want to enter this level of discussion? It will only make us angrier, it will consume time, and all for nothing. Come on, let's look for a consensus solution for the sake of the Gibraltar article.--Imalbornoz (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No, your behaviour amounts to canvassing and can be considered disruptive. According to WP:CANVASS "indiscriminately sending announcements to uninvolved editors is considered "talk-page spamming" and therefore disruptive." Here you invite a user to the NPOV noticeboard and your postings are a clear breach of WP:MULTI. I also want to end this dispute once and for all, but it's becoming increasingly hard when you're intent on creating discussions in separate places and not informing editors at Talk:Gibraltar. RedCoat10 • talk 09:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For info technically its a third warning, there is in addition to my comments above regarding canvassing on the English wikipedia, there is also a warning on Talk:Gibraltar for canvassing on es.wikipeda. I think we can assume you are familiar with the policy. You are canvassing, you are indiscriminately cross-posting and claiming "harassment" is demonstrating bad faith - the comments made about you are not harassment. You received a 3RR warning for edit warring, you've received a warning about canvassing because thats what you're doing.

No one has taken up the med cab case for an obvious reason, on the NPOV noticeboard you were told it was fine, the RS noticeboard resolved the case with no action - clearly you are violating WP:MULTI. I also note that in posts on talk pages you have reverted to your original position claiming the comments are "controversial", clearly they aren't as multiple sources confirm. You talk of wanting consensus, the discussion on Talk:Gibraltar went nowhere because of your conduct there and now you're reverting to your original position. Justin talk 09:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have to say, RedCoat, that I think your behaviour is verging on harassment. This is your first warning. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've only asked him/her to to centralise the discussion and stop asking editors for their opinion on seperate talk pages. Please assume good faith. I've just looked at Wikipedia:Harrassment and haven't made any threats or intimidated Imalbornoz. Please read WP:HA#NOT and reconsider your accusation. Thanks, RedCoat10 • talk 09:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the point in centralising the discussion when it's perfectly obvious what the Gibraltar cabal will do? You will attack him continuously, accuse him of this and that, until he goes away. Did you notice that Blueboar, to whom Imalbornoz asked his question, actually came up with a good proposal? You probably didn't because you're too busy hounding Imalbornoz. (FYI, the solution was, keep the first sentence geographical (as it used to be before you changed it), move the politics to a later sentence in the lead, with the qualifier about internal affairs). Of course, we all know that this will not be acceptable to everyone on the talk page. "Giving in" to Imalbornoz is not going to happen now, is it, because it's gone beyond a sane discussion. It's personal now. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not personal and I did respond to Blueboar. Just because I disagree with a proposal doesn't mean I'm not interested in finding common ground or reaching a consensus. However, I can't understand how we can have a coherent debate if it's spread across a number of seperate user talk pages and two noticeboards. Once again, I'm asking you kindly to retract your accusation of harrassment which was completely uncalled for. Thank you, RedCoat10 • talk 10:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

To RHoPF, it is not harassment, your comments about other editors are nevertheless a naked personal attack and I would suggest you withdraw them. You often claim to be trying to achieve consensus but your comments and personal attacks escalate matters unnecessarily. Justin talk 09:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Imalbornoz. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Justin talk 21:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

'Tarring with the same brush' means that someone is over-generalising and suggesting that everyone is identical based on some artificially chosen criteria. So in that debate he had decided that everyone who thought Gibraltar was self governing had exactly the same motives, thoughts and behaviour. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

You may have noticed this comment from RHoPF "If they agree with the others you probably should let it go." Guess what, that is precisely the response you got. Wikipedia isn't about making deals its about working collaboratively, something you apparently utterly fail to grasp. Justin talk 18:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I would decline to remove the resolved tag, you might like to note the comments made completely independently by other wikipedia editors about the Turks and Caicos Islands. They described them as self-governing, despite the fact they enjoy less self-government than Gibraltor does. Please do take a hint and let it go. The tag doesn't and hasn't stopped people commenting but it will remove the thread in a couple of days. Really, three threads on one forum all trying to skew arguments is a bit much. You've continued to misrepresent what the UN sources actually mean; that skewed comments.

The Falklands is an independent example, as is the one I just gave you. I note you were quick to find an excuse to dismiss it. Think about that. The source could have been changed at any time, you were the one edit warring to remove sources you didn't like. Again think about that.

You were also quick to assume comments were racially motivated, I'm actually half-Spanish. Think about that. Justin talk 23:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You brought up race, you said you thought SPA was a racist term. Justin talk 09:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

My comments about your edits have always been justified, they weren't an attack. I've always been careful to direct you toward somewhere you could read more. You always assume bad faith, for example I simply point you to how completely independently of any Falklands or Gibraltar based articles editors on the Turks and Caicos Islands reached exactly the same conclusion as to the correct term to use. It is merely an independent example on wikipedia; you respond with sarcasm. Why? What do you think you'll achieve? All you do is generate heat and light and raise tension unnecessarily. Go back and read my comments and look at all the policies I gave you links for. I also patiently and politely explained to you how democracy works in Gibraltar and the UK.

Having just noticed your response on the NPOV, I'm just giving up. You don't want to listen do you. Justin talk 09:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I really have had it, my patience is exhausted. I hope I only have to ask this once but please stay of my Talk Page in future. Really the frustration of trying to discuss anything with you has just got too much. I don't wish to converse with you anymore. Justin talk 09:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sloss' Book

It was Chapter 10, I was relying on memory as I didn't have the book in front of me:

Fox ordered that Nicolas Orfila’s position as civil assessor be

renewed, with more pay, since he was “a gentleman of great merit and professional abilities” and had worked faithfully for the British administration since first appointed by Sir Charles Stuart. Orfila felt that his future on the island was doubtful. He wrote that he had tried to get justice done in the affairs of the church and its abuse of funds, but that the pr iests had ‘indisposed’ him to several powerful families of the island who wanted the abuses to continue. If, after the peace, the island were returned to Spain, they would use their influence at court in Madrid to lose him his job, and persecute and ruin his family. He asked Fox to intercede on his

behalf with the king of Spain.

In January 1802, Major General Clephane repeated the request to

London. “In the event of the cession of this island to the Spanish government, there are several individuals that, I am afraid, will suffer considerably for their attachment and good will towards the English. The civil assessor, Don Nicholas Orfila, appears to me in every respect a most upright judge, and a real patriot, studying only to administer public justice without being in the least influenced by any improper

motives. I wish I could say as much of the other judges.

Now stop wasting my time. I have already indicated I DO NOT wish to converse with you anymore. Justin talk 13:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh... you two still squabbling? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

EDIT WAR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!! DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!!

Take the hint. Justin talk 15:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Sorry about that. The screen froze, resulting in an unintended warning and revert to the work you were doing. Again, my apologies. Jusdafax 22:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hola Imalbornoz, I see that you go on trying to unbias Gibraltar-related articles. It seems to me that you're being quite brave :-) I just wanted to congratulate you because of your effort. Sorry for my English, you know my Spanish is far better ;-) --Ecemaml (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC) PS: nowadays I'm not at home, and anyway I do not have much time to contribute to the English wikipedia, however, consider asking for help or references whenever you may need it

Yes, it's one of the worst things when editing such articles. Y sí, ya me encuentro mucho mejor, pero dejaré de estar de baja en pocos días, así que mi disponibilidad es limitada. However, as promised, don't hesitate to contact me if you need specific pieces of information. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Imalbornoz. Tomorrow I'll be at home. I'll try to transcript what the books I have say about the Anglo-Dutch takeover of Gibraltar. It can be a good basis to approach a mediation. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I started this work many time ago. You can see the references. The source cannot be seen as biased (at least not pro-Spanish, since the author was a former Governor of Gibraltar). I don't think further references are needed since it fulfills the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources). The rest is pure speculation (good for a forum or a blog, but not for wikipedia). Best regards —Ecemaml (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC) PS: if you could review the article I'd be very happy; your English is far better than mine.

Some references

As promised, here they are:

• Jackson, William (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (2nd ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, UK: Gibraltar Books. pp. 100–101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.:

Although Article V promised freedom or religion and full civil rights to all Spaniards who wished to stay in Hapsburg Gibraltar, few decided to run the risk of remaining in the town. Fortresses changed hands quite frequently in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The English hold on Gibraltar might be only temporary. When the fortunes of war changed, the Spanish citizens would be able to re-occupy their property and rebuild their lives. English atrocities at Cádiz and elsewhere and the behaviour of the English sailors in the first days after the surrender suggested that if they stayed they might not live to see that day. Hesse's and Rooke's senior officers did their utmost to impose discipline, but the inhabitants worst fears were confirmed: women were insulted and outraged; Roman Catholic churches and institutions were taken over as stores and for other military purposes (except for the Cathedral of Saint Mary the Crowned that was protected successfully by its staunch vicar, Juan Romero, his curate, and his bell-ringer); and the whole town suffered at the hands of the ship's crew and marines who came ashore. Many body reprisals were taken by inhabitants before they left, bodies of murdered Englishmen and Dutchmen being thrown down wells and cesspits. By the time discipline was fully restored, few of the inhabitants wished or dared to remain.

General Sir William Jackson was Governor of Gibraltar between 1978 and 1982. He was a military Historian and former Chairman of the Friends of Gibraltar Heritage.

• George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. pp. 173–174. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4.:

Byng's [English Rear-Admiral George Byng] chaplain Pocock [Rev. Thomas Pocock] went ashore on 6 August and walked 'all over the town'. 'Great disorders', he found, had been 'committed by the boats' crews that came on shore and marines; but the General Officers took great care to prevent them, by continually patrolling with their sergeants, and sending them on board their ships and punishing the marines; one of which was hanged after he had thrown dice with a Dutchman who had 10, and the Englishman 9.'[note 58: Where several soldiers of sailors were sentenced to death at the same time, it was not uncommon for a proportion only to be hanged, the condemned throwing dice to decide who would die] Such was the behaviour not only of the men but their officers that the worst fears of the population were confirmed. There were 'disorders involving persons of the weaker sex with gave rise to secret bloody acts of vengeance'. In consequence, 'the vanquished deprived many of life and threw the corpses in wells and cesspools'.[note 59: Ignacio López de Ayala, 'Historia de Gibraltar', p. 289, quoting from Romero's lost MS. account of the capture] What shocked Spaniards most was the profanation by the Englishmen of places of worship and their mockery of religious objects. If such were the allies of the King of Spain alternative to Philip V, they would have none of him, unpopular though the Duke of Anjou was already becoming with his nation-wide appointment of Frenchmen over Spaniards. Accordingly, when the garrison and City Council marched out on 7 August under the terms of surrender, all but 70 of the inhabitants of the 1,200 houses in the city took what they could carry of what had not yet been plundered, and then filed through the gate towards the ruins of ancient Carteia.

Ayala's Historia de Gibraltar is available here

George Hills was a BBC World Service broadcaster, Hispanist Historian, and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. Some wikipedians tries to discretit him claiming he was a "close friend of Franco", but I haven't been able to find a source of that.

• Sepúlveda, Isidro (2004). Gibraltar. La razón y la fuerza (Gibraltar. The reason and the force). in Spanish. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. pp. 89–91. ISBN 84-206-4184-7. Chapter 2, "La lucha por Gibraltar" (The Struggle for Gibraltar) was available online (PDF). Isidro Sepúlveda Muñoz is a Contemporary History lecturer in the UNED ("Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia"), the biggest Spanish university.

Después del fuego devastador, asaltada al fin la ciudad, sin la mayor parte de sus defensas y con soldados ingleses en sus calles, la confusión se adueñó de la población y se hizo presente la sed de botín y venganza de los soldados. El hecho más grave (un "desafortunado incidente" para la historiografía inglesa) fue el ataque a la población refugiada en la ermita de la Virgen de Europa, donde habían encontrado cobijo mujeres y niños, portando las pertenencias más valiosas de sus hogares; al igual que sucedió en los pueblos aledaños a Cádiz dos años antes, la soldadesca se entregó a la profanación y saqueo del templo, al robo de todos los objetos de valor de los refugiados y, lo más grave, a la vejación y violación de algunas mujeres. El paroxismo de su actuación lo alcanzó el ataque contra la imagen mariana, apuñalada, arrancada la cabeza del Niño que portaba en sus manos y, finalmente, arrojada a los acantilados de la Punta de Europa.

[...] A pesar de tener garantizada su seguridad y el disfrute de sus derechos civiles, la mayor parte de la población militar y civil de Gibraltar optó por abandonar la ciudad. Fue una decisión que a largo plazo tuvo una gran trascendencia, pues la ausencia de una población autóctona facilitó extraordinariamente el asentamiento inglés. Su presencia hubiese sido, por el contrario, un elemento de primera importancia en el posterior asalto e incluso en manos de la diplomacia hubiera facilitado (como ocurriera en Menorca) las negociaciones para su recuperación. Pero si política, militar y diplomáticamente el autoexilio gibraltareño fue perjudicial para España, desde el punto de vista humanitario y en el contexto de la guerra estaba razonado: los temores a las atrocidades de las tropas inglesas en los alrededores de Cádiz habían sido ratificados por su comportamiento desde el mismo día del asalto, siendo los oficiales incapaces de dominar los desmanes de su tropa e incluso participando algunos de ellos en la rapiña generalizada; incluso el concedido respeto a la libertad religiosa estaba en entredicho al ser utilizados como cuarteles y depósitos militares todos los recintos católicos, excepto la Catedral de Santa María, donde su párroco Juan Romero de Figueroa se opuso resueltamente al saqueo.

If you want, we can comment on the sources. I have to leave now. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi Imalbornoz, I've made a statement (maybe too verbose). To sum up, I may discuss about editions being or not a POV, but introducing personal deductions instead of information supported by sources is not acceptable. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting

Hi Imalbornoz, I found this reference. I've just looked at the index, but it's possibly useful for Gibraltar-related issues. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Gib

I've been following the discussion. I've been trying to gauge when to jump back in, I was going to start things off in a new section. Unfortunately what I thought would be easy is now more complicated because the History of Gibraltar article is now being questioned. I had assumed that the information there was generally agreed upon at this point, and all that we had to do was come to a consensus on a summary at the Gibraltar article. Now that the mediation looks to be "expanding" past a small area of text to encompass information at the history article, this mediation is going to be much more complicated. I don't intend to stop trying to help because of the expanded scope, though, I only intend to stop when either a consensus is settled or editors give up on the process completely (and I'll do what I can to try to avoid that). -- Atama頭 16:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Canvas

[8] Please restrict discussions on articles to the talk page and avoid canvassing to influence a particular opinion on user talk pages. Justin talk 10:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Answer

Hola Imalbornoz,

can you please quote the two paragraphs you're referring to? The diff is quite big :-)

On the other hand, I don't remember, but possibly the reason to include the paragraph which begun "For some time..." was to clarify that in spite of the gross mistake that takes Gibraltar as English since 1704, the reality is far from it. If you wish, I can provide you the titles of the chapters in my books (this evening) since I think that all of them clearly describe the period 1704-1713 as "Habsburg Gibraltar". It's a fact that, more or less since 1707, British begun to monopolize the rule of the town, paying attention only at their interests and not to that of the pretender's (hindered by the fact that there were Dutch regiments in there) and that since 1711, when Charles become Emperor, the relationships inside the coalition that supported him cooled very much. But de iure Gibraltar was not British until 1713, upon the signature of the treaties of Utrecht (here there is another interesting story about Louis XIV ceding Gibraltar and handing it in to the Spanish negotiators as a fait accompli, but that's another story). Another interesting thing is that it was me possibly the editor that introduced many time ago the phrase "the town and garrison of Gibraltar in the Kingdom of Spain", verbatim copied from Jackson's book. I'll do some research this evening to find out when the full denomination was mutilated.

Finally, it's really funny that you've been described as being a single-purpose account as if it were an evil thing. See a paragraph:

“ If you wish to continue working as a SPA, capitalize on the strengths of that role, particularly as regards sources. Be willing to buy or borrow books and articles on your chosen subject. Search thoroughly for information on-line. Make notes reminding you from where your information comes, carefully check its reliability and neutrality. Reproduce it in the form of citations.

The community's main concern is that edits by SPAs stand at odds with Wikipedia's neutrality and advocacy policies. Indeed, in some cases, there may be clear conflicts of interest. Care in these areas will be seen as a sign of good editorship.

”

Compare your behaviour with other more obvious and persistent SPAs, which haven't provided a printed reliable source ever. Funny also the puppetry accusation.

Seguimos hablando. Un abrazo --Ecemaml (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Vale, I see your point. I think you've raised an interesting issue.

First of all, as promised, information about the denomination of the period 1704-1713. Hills devoted four chapters to this period: Gibraltar under 'Charles II of Spain' 1704 (Siege 12), Gibraltar under 'Charles II of Spain' 1705 (Siege 12 cont.), From 'Spanish' to 'British' Gibraltar and Britain acquires Gibraltar 1711-1713. Jackson is quite explicit: Hapsburg Gibraltar: The Eleventh and Twelfth Sieges, 1693 to 1713. My last purchase (Gibraltar. A History, by Maurice Harvey... possibly I'll invoice you part of the price ;-)) is also explicit: Gibraltar for the Habsburgs: 1704-1713. So, from a Wikipedia point of view, there is no reason not to label this period as Habsburg Gibraltar (even if between 1516 and 1700 Gibraltar was also Habsburg).

And now, the paragraph you mention. Well, once I read the paragraphs I remember what I aimed at writing the paragraphs: I just wanted to clarify several myths that may ruin an encyclopaedic article, as they're popular however doubtful or even false. The first one is the one related to the start of the English rule. As it's currently phrased, the paragraph is awful and possibly dispensable. It's obvious that a proper use of sections and a clear description of how the town was taken over on behalf of the pretender would be enough (BTW, there's a huge missing fact in such a period: the Archduke Charles was in Gibraltar on August 2, 1705, to be acclaimed King Charles III of Spain; as Harvey describes the Archduke Charles arrived in the town to be acclaimed King Charles III of Spain, the first slice of Spanish territory he could truly call his own).

On the other hand, I strongly believe that this is the point to describe the widespread story of the English flag, since it has been used to denounce the pérfida Albión and therefore must be explicitly refuted, since it's just propaganda (Spanish, in this situation; I do not like propaganda, regardless of its source).

Finally, an interesting point to emphasize is that, de facto until 1704, but de iure until 1713, Gibraltar was not only the town, but also its Campo Llano de Gibraltar, the municipal term that covers what nowadays is Tarifa, Algeciras, Los Barrios, San Roque y La Línea (see, for instance this). That the inhabitants of the town leave it and settled down in another part of Gibraltar is, until 1713, relevant to the history of Gibraltar, considering that the town was de iure Spanish until 1713. Beyond that date, it's pointless. About the Gibraltarians that took part in the following sieges of the town, the most obvious example is Simón Susarte (curiously, it's not listed in the section of notable people from Gibraltar; other notable Gibraltarians not listed are Fray Juan de Asensio, General Father of the mercedarios and president of the Council of Castile, Cardinal Diego de Astorga y Céspedes, archbishop of Toledo, or Gonzalo Piña Lidueña, founder of Gibraltar, Venezuela) but Ayala also mentions them (see here, p.296).

Well, sorry for the long explanation. I have a lot of work to do and won't be able to participate until tomorrow.

Venga, un abrazo --Ecemaml (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree, although I think this talk must go on in the article talk page. Just a final comment: I prefer the most verbose option and I'd leave (regardless of having a more detailed article) the references. Un abrazo --Ecemaml (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick request: can you please have a quick look at Diego de Astorga? Your English is far better than mine and possibly you can make some copyedit? Thank you (no obligation, obviously :-)). Hasta luego --Ecemaml (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources and quotations

Hola Imalbornoz, I'm beginning to organize some of my material. As a first step, I'm including some interesting quotations from my sources in User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar. Enjoy them and, if you need further information about a specific issue, I'll provide the info in there. Un abrazo --Ecemaml (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It's funny. Your personal situation seems rather similar to mine (just the detail about the number of kids, I've got just one right now), especially with regard to your partner's comments :-) I think that things are evolving in the proper wikipedian way. However, I disagree with regard to your assessment on "rationality". Have you read the section on the notable Gibraltar-born guys? It's far from being rational :-) See you and gracias de nuevo. Un abrazo --Ecemaml (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC) PS: BTW, I've included a new quotation in User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar#San Roque

RFC

I've started an RFC on Gibraltar related articles here [9]. This isn't an invitation to post on my talk page. Justin talk 21:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

¡Feliz Navidad!

Hi! It's the first time I address to you in your talk page, so I thought that this could be in order. By the way, you may be interested in this suggestion. En fin, ¡Felices Fiestas! See you soon, Imalbornoz. --Cremallera (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

This being the season of good will, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Justin talk 23:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I wish the same to you too, this being the season of good will. Let's hope that the new year finds all of us more peaceful and, above all, happier. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Feliz Navidad

Hola Imalbornoz, espero que estas fechas sean, sobre todo, tranquilas y gratificantes para tí y para los tuyos. Yo ya estoy, como quien dice, en capilla, y supongo que en algún momento habrá un parón wikipédico. Seguimos en contacto. Un abrazo --Ecemaml (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC) PS: translation here

Pointy Edit Summaries

Edit warring takes 2, you've already had the proposal rejected, so if anyone is edit warring that would be you. Pointy edit summaries such as this one, give me no confidence whatsoever that you're mending your ways to work collaboratively. That is why you're still not welcome on my talk page. Justin talk 12:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

To err once is perhaps a mistake, to repeat the same is pure carelessness. QED. Plainly you don't understand WP:PEACOCK Justin talk 12:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And a Happy New Year to you too!!!! Imalbornoz (talk) 12:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC) (I hope you can read this in my talk page, as your collaborative attitude does not seem to be compatible with allowing me -and a whole set of other editors- on your talk page) ;-) .

2 editors, who I've asked not to post after provocation. I see you continue in the same vein and you think thats helpful. Justin talk 13:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Peace & Love. --Imalbornoz (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC) PS: I hope my complaint for your forbidding some editors to post on your talk page did not disturb you too much: I only hoped to give you a chance to think about your own attitude. I will always accept you in my talk page (even if you troll my page with "DO NOT POST ON MY TALK PAGE!!!!!" repeated 40 times in a row, create an alert about me in the Wikiquette noticeboard saying -to no use- that I am canvassing[10], accuse me -to no use again- of meat-puppetry[11], create a RFC saying -to no use once more- that I am a disruptive and tendentious editor[12], revert me without even reading my edit[13] -to then self-revert 2 minutes later after you read it-, or accuse me -for the 37th time- of not assuming good faith - I should say that this small sample of not very friendly looking behaviours isn't very encouraging, is it?).

Troll? Perhaps a none too subtle hint that you were unwelcome. Since apparently you don't appreciate me self-reverting when I make a mistake, then I promise not to do so in future where your edits are involved. As to the rest, you did canvas, you have been tendentious, for example obsessively reverting even spelling mistakes; of itself a demonstration of a lack of good faith. I could go on and on but observe it seems pointless. Justin talk 16:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me stress this very emphatically: I do appreciate your self-reverting when you make a mistake; on the other hand, I do not appreciate you reverting ME without previously reading me. I think this is quite a reasonable complaint, and easy to understand too. Why this happened is what I would like you to think about. Anyway, you have always been welcome in my talk page (even if you treat me with "none too subtle" -as you say- bad manners -that's something that I would also like you to think about). Look what a good faith assumer I am: I am explaining this to you with the hope that you will be able to see some room for improvement in your attitude and react accordingly. --Imalbornoz (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries reluctanly revert for the reasons stated in talk, rv self-revert. together with the comment in talk It was a good effort, my apologies for doubting you, I've self-reverted., the only reason for a reluctant revert was the mistaken impression it had increased the article in size, after mulling over what I though was a good effort. After realising my mistake I self-revert. You assume I hadn't read it and think its a reasonable complaint. Your presumptions are the reason for being unwelcome on my talk page. Good day, its been interesting. Justin talk 18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

UNINDENT

Well, let's see:

• You complain about my presumptions because I assume you reverted without reading (as I saw a reversion and then a self-reversion 2 minutes later -not much time to think about the text if you had read it thoroughly first). Notice that I have not accused you of canvassing, sock and meat-puppetting, "disruptive and tendentious" edits, "nationalism"... On the other hand, notice that I have just accused you of reverting before reading (behold my mortal sin!!!) with quite reasonable evidence in open view to everyone.

• BUT you have NOTHING to regret after assuming I am (and openly accusing me of it) a sock-puppet, a meat-puppet, a canvasser, a disruptive editor, a tendentious editor,... (etcetera, etcetera et cetera and time after time after time after time...), banning me from your talk page, repeating 40 times (in capital letters) that ban in my talk page...

"Huy huy huy..." Maybe you should give things a second thought and reflect on whether you can be a better wikipedian... Maybe there would be more collaboration in the Gib articles if you (and Gibnews) had a more open attitude. Just look at Gibmetal and Ecemaml's collaboration, don't you envy it?. Humbly, about myself... even Narson thanked me for my effort! Regarding Red Hat of Pat Ferrick... don't you think that he could have contributed A LOT to Gib-related articles in quite a documented and NPOV fashion instead of "self-imposing" an exile from them due to your (and Gibnews') attacks? Notice that I have not opened one Wikiquette alert or RFC or anything on you or Gibnews... (can you say the same about yourself opening alerts on me, Ecemaml, RHOPF, Cremallera...?)

Come on!! This time of the year is a wonderful opportunity for making changes!!! --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Non, je ne regrette rien. I complain about nothing, merely make an observation. I don't think I've ever suggested you were a sock puppet, I also mentioned suspicions of meat puppetry I didn't accuse, you have canvasssed, you have been disruptive and you have edited tendentiously. So show me where I accused you of sock puppetry, you're usually so ready with a diff. As regards "nationalism", let me point out you made assumptions about my ethnic origins, your edits reflect a nationalist POV and don't think I've forgotten about your comments off-wiki.

Funnily enough RHoPF and I buried the hatchet long ago, yet when I suggested doing the same with Ecemaml the offer was unceremoniously flung back in my face. Time and again I gave you a second chance, only to find myself responding to a question to find a snide insinuation behind it. Instead of respecting my request not to post on my talk page, you still did so. You continue in the same vein by making something out of nothing, when I made a mistake and apologised for it. Now seeing as you insist that your presumptions are "reasonable" give me one good reason to think you've changed your ways. Justin talk 10:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Edith Piaf fan ;-),

You have suggested I was a sock puppet: here you have one clear example (notice it was just just in my 7th day of editing wikipedia!! talk about being careful not to WP:BITE newcomers!!). Did you forget it because you regret it? Or because there's such an overwhelming amount of people like me worthy of being accused that you just can't keep track of all your rightful attacks ;-) ?

I have NEVER made assumptions about your ethnic origins (look for the diff, and maybe you realise I've attacked you less than you think! That would be a useful exercise!!). BTW, I swear to God I am NOT a Spanish nationalist. It only ticks me off when I see a discussion or a document overwhelmingly derailed by a POV (be it political, nationalist or philosophical). Trust me: I am NOT a Spanish nationalist.

I am glad you buried your hatchet with RHOPF. But do you realise that, in the meanwhile, he seems to have been scared (or bored) away from Gib related articles? And that the many attacks he has received from you and Gibnews was -probably- one of the main causes?

I am not posting any of these personal reflections in any other page than my own, in order to keep it personal. My only goal here is to try to make you think and see if you need to "defuse" some aggressiveness in order to let the Gib discussions flow more easily (of course, if you think no improvement is needed, "allá tú"). I will try not to let any of this pour out into article talk pages, which I am sure we both agree should be only about content. Are you ready to make a commitment to avoid any personal reference in article talk pages, too? Hopefully and very sincerely, thank you. --Imalbornoz (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC) (PS: I have one more -good-intentioned- comment to make about the general situation in Gib related article discussions, but I have some work to do, I will share it with you later)

Which isn't a sock puppet accusation. You swear to god you're not a Spanish nationalist but your first mission on wikipedia was to expunge ANY reference to self-government in Gibraltar. Ponder for a second the impression that leaves.

I also haven't attacked RHoPF and you might care to ponder why I can edit quite happily in my main area of expertise, the Falklands, without any rancour from the Argentine editors who also frequent those articles. Whilst we may have disagreements we can usually work through them.

Defuse some aggressiveness? I'm not by nature, the instigator of conflict but don't respond well to being provoked - something Narson has observed is that I'm too easily wound up. Not to make any comment on nationalist lines but to observe the confrontational way certain editors have approached Gibraltar topics is counter productive.

If you want to bury the hatchet and draw a line under past conflicts, then fine, happy to do so. But given I've done that several times already forgive me if I'm wary. Justin talk 12:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to add, ponder for a little while, the first comment about pointy edit summaries, accusations of edit warring etc. Ponder also the comment that your proposed edit was already disputed, yet you made it again. Justin talk 12:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And anoter one to ponder "seeing as you insist that your presumptions are "reasonable" give me one good reason to think you've changed your ways.", I note you neglected to provide an answer. Justin talk 14:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Self-government

Talk:Gibraltar#RfC:_Self-government Guy (Help!) 11:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You should not alter an RFC after filing, except to correct an obvious error as I did. Even then it is customary to use strikethrough and add a note explaining. It is inappropriate to extensively modify an RFC, or to add your own opinion. Justin talk 18:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I never thought of modifying a RfC (didn't even think anyone could modify it) until you showed the way. It's very funny that you say that I shouldn't modify it!!! (looks like a case of: "do as a say not as I do"...).

In fact, you are striking thru my comment on a modification by you on a RfC!!!!!! And you strike thru it because it's "wrong" to modify a RfC. You are a "cachondo mental"!!!!! (I hope that thanks to your half-Spanish heritage you won't have problems to realise this is not an offensive term).

Look, Justin, you have never listened to me when I have explained why you should or should not do something, so I won't waste our time. Please just don't strike through any of my comments any more. I expect the same respect from you as you have obtained from me when you asked me not to post on your talk page (I have only done it once, and that was because I couldn't even communicate with you in the article talk page because you kept deleting my comments).

Thank you for your respect in advance. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Imalbornoz, please do not edit or refactor other editors' comments on a talk page. Per WP:TPO, such edits are allowed only in a very limited number of circumstances. Even correcting another editors' typos is not allowed. This is a potentially blockable offense, so please understand how serious this is. An RfC is just like any other talk page comment, representing the view of a particular editor and signed by that editor. Changing the RfC is literally changing another editor's words, and that is expressly forbidden. I've left the same message for Justin on my talk page. If you have any response to the RfC or any corrections you feel need to be made, either do so in your comments to the RfC or talk with Guy directly to ask him to fix his post or ask for permission to make changes. You may not have realized what you've done, but consider this an informal warning. Thank you. -- Atama頭 17:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Farewell

I bare my buttocks in your general direction. Justin talk 12:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I really hope you are happier now (but I doubt it). I see you aren't apologising for your insults. Pity: it seems you haven't learnt anything during these months (since you gave that warm welcome at the top of this page to me as a newcomer). If you come back (which you probably will), I'll be wholeheartedly expecting a new Justin without strange prejudices in his eyes and a new eagerness to accept contributions from anybody (from me, for example) without automatically rejecting them and saying they are "flogging a dead horse"(sic) or advancing a "fascist racist agenda". I wish you the best. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You have an agenda and wikipedia is the platform you chose to use; it isn't about writing an encyclopedia. I will never apologise for saying that, because you and I both know its true. I regret some of the things said in the heat of the moment that is all. My intention is to quit, if you wish to follow Red Hat's agenda of making it a block you go right ahead. I bare my buttocks in both of your general directions. Justin talk 15:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA

I'm thinking that we should raise a case on Justin's comments towards you and other Spanish editors. I've been very impressed by your tempered and mature responses towards him and you have been overly generous in not doing anything. I believe, despite what he says, he is not going to quit Wikipedia (which is fine and up to him), and so if anything constructive is to be achieved at the Gib page he needs to seriously chill out and dispense with the Franco stuff. Noone would get away with likening fellow German editors to Nazis. His response towards this Gibnews business, even though it doesn't involve him, seems to have enraged him even more. Perhaps an enforced block would give him the time off to contemplate. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually let's first give him the opprtunity to reply here re your msg on Atama's page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that NPA was broken, but Justin is voluntarily taking a long (maybe indefinite) Wikibreak. It seems like a moot point to put down any sort of block. Considering that Justin's block log is clear except for one short block for edit-warring more than 2 years ago, I don't think that more than a temporary block would be justified. A voluntary break has the same preventative effect as a temporary block, so there's not much that needs to be done. If Justin returns, and starts with the same behavior as before, then that would be a different story and sanctions might be warranted. But for now the situation seems to have taken care of itself. -- Atama頭 17:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Given his self-imposed exile, temporary or otherwise, I would agree with that. Hopefully the time off will help him realise it's only Wikipedia and life is too short to get so angry about it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I join in praise of Imalbornoz for his self-restraint, and of course his hard work collecting references and so on. I too hope that if Justin returns, he omits personal attacks. Also, thanks for the mention of Bryan Ward Perkin's book; I've now read it and it does indeed support an interesting hypothesis (with which I tend to agree; I'm fairly sure that my personal barbarian ancestors were difficult neighbours at best). Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Edit warring, to restore your favoured version, how unsurprising of you. I note that the arguments against inclusion remain unaddressed. I see. Justin talk 17:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh and don't be a patronising ass with comments, like Justin, Justin. Justin talk 18:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin, "patronizing ass" is not a phrase that really helps to build a good encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither is being a patronising ass but I don't see you commenting about that. Justin talk 18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

RE: Gib

It is a little from all three, Imalbornoz. If including it will incite edit wars and there are alternatives we can all live with for the moment, I would favour that. There are also issues with how it was first imposed, as I said before when it first occured, I have no great problem with the mention (as I thought that would be the end of things,it turns out that wasn't the end of things. People then chose to argue over specific words within that and silliness) but I was never happy about how it was imposed, with it being forced in rather than agreed and put in. It was unnecessary and,regardless of opinions, it almost cost us a good editor in the form of Justin. There are also issues over relevence I still feel (and yes, I am aware that many Gib history books might mention it, but we are dealing with a general article.) --Narson ~ Talk • 18:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Imalbornoz, thank you for "proxying" my vote to the Gibraltar talk page. I'm sorry, however, as it seems that such a good faith action could have been used to argue a "co-ordination of activities by email". Anyway, thank you. Not only for your edition, but especially for your message about my paternity in my talk page of the Spanish Wikipedia. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I feel I need to thank you your efforts Ecemaml (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom case

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia: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—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 13:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. The case hasn't been rejected yet; one of the 12 active arbitrators, Roger Davies, has recused (which simply means he is not available for this case) and Newyorkbrad has asked for more information before he makes up his mind. The other arbitrators haven't commented yet, so adding your statement (if you want to, no pressure!) will be helpful to Newyorkbrad and the others in deciding what to do. EyeSerene^talk 19:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Your statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Hello Imalbornoz. Your statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case is over 700 words long. The word limit is 500. Please fix this within the next 24 hours or it will be refactored by a clerk. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:21, 10 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, Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Imalbornoz, do you think the Arbitration case deserves so much work from your side? I think that the ArbCom has made a decision. We may like it or not (I don't like the remedies proposed for me) but I think it's pointless to go on such a discusion. It Justin and his friends do not like the findinds and decisions it's up to them but at this point it does not seem possible to make them see that there is maybe a problem with Justin's behaviour. Full stop. My advice here is, as I've told Justin, back to work. Editing in wikipedia is joyful, I promise. And Wikipedia is definitely not a battleground, even if not all of us play by the rules. Please, simply ignore Justin&friends' comments. I guess it's worse to "entrar al trapo". On the other hand, I'll be off until we have a decision (if the decision is to topic ban me, I'll be off for three aditional months... but ask me for sources if you needed... i have plenty of them). Best regards and take care of yourself --Ecemaml (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Justin

Imal, first of all I'd suggest just leaving him be. I have spoken for you many a time and I know you mean well, but if you keep explaining things to someone it can come across as a lecture or demeaning, which I know you do not mean, but it can seem like a niggle at pride. On the rest, I don't think you need to worry. My frustration is more with ArbCom than with any party in the case (It is not RedHat's fault if he thinks he was right when ArbCom give him that impression, though seemingly unintended), and it is just that, frustration. I believe they have made a mistake but it is not something I can change. The 3RR report was a bloody stupid thing to do mind, but I am sure Justin will calm over that. You just have to understand where Justin is in his real life right now, he is suceptible to feeling under attack and if you look through that filter, I think you will understand his reactions. The same way I shift myself around to realise why you might have done something that seemed silly, if I try to look through your eyes I can better understand the intention behind the act. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Decision talk page

Hey imalbornoz - I suggest you resist the urge to reply any further on that page. There's been plenty of sensationalist hyperbole I wanted to reply to but I came to the realization that it achieves nothing by doing so - the arbitrators don't hang on every word and and all it does is wind up those who are unhappy with the decisions. I would say the best thing we can all do is wait for the final verdict, then avoid direct interaction with particular parties where there is friction, other than discussing article content. If in discussing article content anyone is foolish to be uncivil or assumes bad faith etc etc, I'm sure a lengthy block will be forthcoming pretty swiftly. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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) 23:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyrights

Hi, Imalbornoz, sorry for not spending much time in the Gibraltar article (you know, I find it more interesting to write than simply discussing :-)). With regard to copyrights, it's always tricky to know exactly when a work enters into the public domain. According to the Spanish law applicable at the time, a works enter into the public domain 80 years after the death of its author. It's likely that the works you point at fall under such a category. However, it's even more likely that the paper or a news agency owns the copyright of the photos. In that case, we're talking about 80 years from publication. Therefore, you can assume they're in the public domain (even in the case they're not in the public domain, you could use the first one here under a fair use claim). However, I'd suggest you to upload it to commons. Hope it helps. See you --Ecemaml (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate license would be {{PD-old}} but if you wish, I can upload the image. Just let me know --Ecemaml (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC) PD: when the article goes eventually live, please let it me know, just to make it a DYK article (or you can do it by yourself if you want to)

You've misses the source of all of them. They might be deleted if no proper source is provided. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You see, I was the creator of the Fidel Pagés article in the Spanish wikipedia. So long ago that I didn't remember it ;-) --Ecemaml (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The idea is to provide both information about the origin of the picture and about the place you've actually taken the picture. It helps to assert the copyright-free claim. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've done some minor changes to the article. Would you mind if I propose it as a DYK article? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Fidel Pagés

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Reminder

Just to remind you, you are on three reverts in 24 hours on Gibraltar and could be blocked if you revert again. We're close to agreement here - let's try and reach it. Pfainuk talk 23:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Pfainuk talk 23:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the charge is that you made a personal attack on the talk page. If you are willing to withdraw the comment that Pfainuk found to be an attack, things might be all right. I notice you have reverted the lead twice at Gibraltar on the matter of the number of people. I hope that you will not continue to revert until consensus is reached on the talk page. Your response is awaited at ANI. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're willing to withdraw your comment that Pfainuk thought was a personal attack, I'm willing to look into this further. I suggest striking it out or deleting it from the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You are in violation of policies concerning three reverts and edit waring. Because no edits have been made today or yesterday I am not issuing blocks. However please consider yourself warned under terms of the ARBCOM rulings on Gibralter. JodyB _talk 19:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see this addendum. JodyB _talk 14:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Imalbornoz/Capture of Gibraltar

Wikipedia:Imalbornoz/Capture of Gibraltar, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Imalbornoz/Capture of Gibraltar and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Imalbornoz/Capture of Gibraltar during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Justin talk 15:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved this page to User:Imalbornoz/Capture of Gibraltar. If you disagree, please comment in the above-named MfD discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Imalbornoz/Exodus to San Roque

Wikipedia:Imalbornoz/Exodus to San Roque, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Imalbornoz/Exodus to San Roque and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Imalbornoz/Exodus to San Roque during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Justin talk 15:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved this page to your user space at User:Imalbornoz/Exodus to San Roque. If you disagree, please comment in the above-named MfD discussion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

AE Courtesy Note

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Wee Curry Monster

This is a courtesy note to let you know that you have been mentioned by name at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result concerning Wee Curry Monster and a proposed user conduct solution has been posted. No action has been suggested against you. Vassyana (talk) 03:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Imalbornoz. You have new messages at Vassyana's talk page.
Message added 18:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gibraltar Discretionary Sanctions

This is a courtesy note to inform you that articles and discussions about Gibraltar or concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar are subject to a discretionary sanctions remedy. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Discretionary sanctions. You are being notified per the actions logged here. Any disruptive, uncivil, or generally problematic conduct may lead to discretionary sanctions imposed by an administrator. This warning is not an indication of any wrong doing on your part. It is simply a general notice to recent editors in the topic area. Thank you for understanding. Vassyana (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hola Imalbornoz, you've possibly noticed that I gave up. I realized that I can't waste so big amount of effort editing here, especially considering how scarce my time is. I admire your courage and perseverance. However, I've been spending my time in the Spanish wikipedia in Gibraltar-related articles. I'll warn you when the articles are finished (see for example es:Usuario:Ecemaml/Controversia sobre el estatus del istmo de Gibraltar. It's just half done and too focused, right now, in the history part, but you can use their references and the like whenever you need them. Just to let you know. Un fuerte abrazo --Ecemaml (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gibraltar

I have provided a warning about discussion participation at Talk:Gibraltar#Discussion Warning. This is to ensure you have been explicitly notified. This note does not indicate any wrongdoing on your part. I am sending it to all talk page participants with the past 72 hours.

As a recent participant, I explicitly invite you to join in the discussion that I have started at Talk:Gibraltar#Refocus. Discussions on the talk page are going around in old circles. I am trying to help break that pattern and get the discussion focused. I look forward to your contributions in helping improve the article. --Vassyana (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)