Imalbornoz

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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 hereReply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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) ;-) .Reply

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)Reply

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[1], accuse me -to no use again- of meat-puppetry[2], create a RFC saying -to no use once more- that I am a disruptive and tendentious editor[3], revert me without even reading my edit[4] -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?).Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

On June 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fidel Pagés, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

• Talk:Gibraltar#Proposed process

I make a proposal for a process and conditions to move forward. You are invited to share your thoughts and participate in the discussion. Cheers! --Vassyana (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

With all the preliminaries out of the way, the mediation cabal case you are involved in will now get underway. The first issues for substantive discussion is posted on the bottom of the talk page. I ask that you watch the page to keep up to date with other parties' responses. Cheers! Lord Roem (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Imalbornoz, unfortunately I'm on wikiholidays (even in the Spanish Wikipedia). I'm currently becoming a PhD candidate, so I'm attending some classes and, you know, February is the time where articles must be presented and I'm having very little time to do anything more that working, looking after my kids and finishing the articles. Hopefully I'll return on February week 4. However, with regard to your question, I'd like to have a narrower question :-) I mean, the time table of the 'Hapsburg period' is pretty simple. First of all, this terminology is not universally accepted and relates not to the actual control of the city but to the de iure status of the city. That is, Gibraltar was not ceded to Great Britain until de signature of the Treaty of Utrecht.

I'm talking without looking at the sources, but more or less, the story is as follows: the prince of Hesse was the representative of the Archduke Charles in Spain. However, he had very few troops on his own. Most of the soldiers and the whole of the sailors belonged to the powers of the Great Alliance, which supported the claims of the Hapsburg pretender. When Gibraltar was taken over, the prince of Hesse, as representative of the Archduke, took nominally the commandment of the city. I say nominally since, as representative of the Archduke, he aimed to make the Spanish territories uprise on favor of the pretender (that is, his task wasn't becoming Gibraltar governor). Therefore, he appointed the count of Valdesoto as governor (in fact, he's formally the first Gibraltar governor after Diego de Salinas). He was an Irish Catholic noble owing allegiance to the Archduke. This caused some conflicts since the mainly Protestant troops present in the city (and their commanders) didn't want to serve under a Catholic governor). This conflict came to an end since the count of Valdesoto was killed in the siege laid by the French-Spanish troops in November 1704. He was succeeded by the English commander in Gibraltar, John Shrimpton. He was appointed by the Archduke Charles, but actually chosen by Queen Anne. Hesse remained in the city until August 1705 when the Archduke Charles made a scale in Gibraltar and was proclaimed king of Spain in there. However, the Archduke took away Hesse. He left the city with most of the 'Spanish' troops (mostly Catalans, but not only), thus the bulk of the troops that remained in the city were English (with a small Dutch detachment). Although Shrimpton and his troops formally owed allegiance to the Archduke, in February 1706, Queen Anne declared Gibraltar a free port. Hesse had died at the doors of Barcelona in September 1705 so no 'Hapsburg' commander was again in the city. When Shrimpton was succeeded by Robert Elliot in 1707, it was only Queen Anne the one that appointed the new Gibraltar governor. There was no involvement by the Archduke.

The important point to take into account is that there was no actual Hapsburg troops or side (and therefore no Hapsburg rule, although this phrase may be useful to describe the period, since the sovereignty of Gibraltar was 'de iure' Spanish). The Great Alliance supported Archduke Charles but there was no actual Hapsburg troops beyond the scarce Spanish supporter of Charles (mainly in the Crown of Aragón). Troops or commanders owing allegiance only to the pretender (not to the powers of the Great Alliance) abandoned Gibraltar in August 1705.

Feel free to use the previous text whenever needed (fix and copyedit it, please :-)). Tell me which precise statements require a explicit reference and I'll provide it as soon as possible (but possibly not sooner than late February). As I don't have here my books, maybe some of the dates are wrong, but the overall picture is more or less accurate.

Independientemente de todo esto, encantado de saber de ti. Espero que estés bien. Un abrazo --Ecemaml (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hola Imalbornoz, tengo un problema y es el siguiente: desde que Alvarito nació, hemos transformado mi despacho en su cuarto. Es donde duerme y no puedo ponerme por la noche a escanear nada. La semana pasada estuve de viaje y no he podido hacer nada este último fin de semana. A ver si el próximo hay suerte y te puedo proporcionar las fuentes necesarias. Saludos --Ecemaml (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Note that I have asked for arbitration enforcement against you following your accusation of bad faith at Talk:Gibraltar here. Pfainuk talk 21:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

For the reasons explicated in much greater detail in this AE thread, and under the authority of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Discretionary sanctions:

1. Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs), Imalbornoz (talk · contribs), Pfainuk (talk · contribs), and Richard Keatinge (talk · contribs) are placed on the following restriction: they may not make any substantive edit to Gibraltar unless they have posted on Talk:Gibraltar explaining their proposed edit, and 48 hours have elapsed since the time of the posting, and no editor objected to the proposed edit. For the purposes of this restriction: "substantive edit" means any edit that is not purely a typo fix, formatting change, or an exemption to the 3RR rule; "object" includes any expression of opposition to the proposed edit, regardless of the reason behind the opposition.
2. The four editors listed above are further banned from starting or participating in any discussion concerning any events, occurrences, or incidents that occurred between 1600 AD and 1900 AD, if such event, occurrence, or incident took place in, or is otherwise related to, Gibraltar, broadly construed. This restriction applies to all namespaces and all pages.
3. Violations of either of the above restriction will result in an immediate ban from Gibraltar and its talk page, as well as any further sanctions an uninvolved administrator may choose to impose.
4. Any uninvolved administrator may, for good cause, grant an exemption to the restriction in item 2 on a case-by-case basis. Such exemptions may be revoked if abused.
5. As an application of item 4, an exemption to item 2 is granted to all four editors as follows: item 2 does not apply to participation in a binding content RFC regarding their present disputes. The RFC is to be supervised by an uninvolved administrator, who may set such limitations as necessary to ensure the smooth progress of the RFC. Like all exemptions, this exemption may be revoked if abused.
6. Restrictions 1 and 2 will be lifted upon the conclusion of the content RFC referred to in item 5, provided that such RFC yields a consensus on the wording to be used, and the editor accepts the outcome of the RFC and conform their future edits to it. They may not attempt to change the outcome except by initiating a new RFC no less than one year after the original RFC concludes.
7. All involved editors are warned in the strongest terms that disruption of the RFC process, in whatever form, will be viewed with great disfavor, and will lead to sanctions up to and including a lengthy block and/or topic ban.

T. Canens (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please see WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Wee Curry Monster. The May 2011 sanction about Gibraltar named yourself as well as Wee Curry Monster. That AE led to a proposal for an RfC about the disputed matters. It appears that the RfC was never conducted, and admins may need to decide if an RfC should still be required before all the restrictions are lifted. You may find this whole matter of little concern if you are no longer planning to actively edit at Gibraltar. You may comment in the AE thread if you wish. Thank you, 14:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The appeal by Wee Curry Monster against the May 2011 Gibraltar restriction that was also imposed on you and two others is successful. Please see this result. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grenache, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rioja (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cierzo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Iberian, Bora, Mistral and La Rioja

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

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) 21:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. WCM_email 15:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Obligatory 3RR warning, as required by policy - not an invitation to post on my talk page. WCM_email 15:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please do not use the email functionality to contact me again. I can discuss content in talk space, you have no reason to contact me otherwise. WCM_email 19:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Do I have to repeat you are not welcome to post on my talk page or email me. Please stop now. WCM_email 00:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

A reminder [5], you have not been welcome to post on my talk page for nearly a decade. Take the hint.

In answer to your badgering, the only reason for extensive quotes is your badgering. You demand such a high level of proof on anyone else's edit (mainly because you don't actually have the sources you quote) that I have been forced to add them. I will remove them presently myself.

Stay away from my talk page. WCM_email 17:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

In addition, Imalbornoz, do not use those old names--it's WP:OUTING. Don't mention them anywhere: I am telling you this in my capacity as an administrator, one who's indef-blocked editors for OUTING before. You filed some arbitration request--that's great, and all you need for that are the editors' user names. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Your amendment request has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar; the committee declines to reimpose discretionary sanctions in this topic area at ARCA. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

You have been around here long enough not to need to be templated but evidently the point needs to be emphasised so that you are in no doubt:

 

Your recent editing history at Gibraltar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Have you considered soliciting additional input on whether the words "since the original population left in 1704" belong in the ethnicity section of the Gibraltar article via an RfC? Having watched the extensive conversation you drove on that on the Gibraltar talk page, I am sure that the discussion would be very different among people who are not familiar with the editors involved or the history of the article. I believe the same is true of the other issue in that discussion - whether the heritage-based and surname-based ethnicity information should be in the article at all.

You put a great deal of work into that discussion long after I thought there was no chance of persuading the watchers of the page to your view or even reaching a middle ground, so I thought you might be interested in pursuing Wikipedia dispute resolution. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply