User talk:Cremallera

My Talk Archives

RfC: Self-government

Talk:Gibraltar#RfC:_Self-government Guy (Help!) 11:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Gracias por las referencias. I hope they'll be useful :-)

It's a pity not to see you soon here, but it's possibly more fruitful to invest time in real life than in this virtual battleground. Best regard and hope to see you soon. --Ecemaml (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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—

Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 13:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Evidence

Hello Cremallera. Your evidence on the above page stands at over 1300 words. The limit is 1000. Please refactor it within the next 24 hours or a clerk will do it for you. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

935 word I make it - thank you very much for attending to it so quickly, it's much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

999 words I make it now, so good work! :-) If you need anymore help or advice, please don't hesitate to contact me. I can assure you that you're not being a pain! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 23:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help requested

Following your very sensible suggestion I have merged Gibraltar constitutional referendum, 2006 into Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006. I think that I have followed all the steps in Help:Merger, leaving only one thing: fixing double redirects. At [1] I find quite a lot and my lunch hour won't allow me to do them all. Can you help me to go through the list, leaving out talk pages of course? Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy Notice

[2] The topic ban is not a blanket excuse, please stop following my contributions. You and your friends are getting creepy. Justin talk 11:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which I have respected, a sub putting into Gibraltar 10 years ago is very oblique even for "broadly construed". Your message on the talk page strikes me as intimidating. You would have been better served querying an arb before trying to "lecture". Now again please leave me alone, I trust I won't have to ask again. Justin talk 11:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Cremallera. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 02:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification motion

A case (Gibraltar) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick (Talk) 21:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]