User talk:Imalbornoz/Archive 1

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)