User talk:Richard Keatinge/Archives/2010/December 2010

{{Chronological talk archive|%F %Y}

Gibraltar / San Roque
I have amended the wording slightly of the sentence describing San Roque, please alter your vote accordingly if you do not agree with the revised edition. It won't be altered again, but on reflection there is no evidence for the word majority. --Gibnews (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You really are not helping by introducing another variation when we are actually close to an agreement. --Gibnews (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A variation that is more defensible and irritates fewer people may turn out to be useful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well there was a sufficient consensus on my version to go with it, There is no evidence that the Spaniards were threatened in any way, simply that they were beaten in warfare, chose to run away, and were allowed to do so despite committing murders after agreeing to the cease fire. This is just playing to the 'real Gibraltar in San Roque' nonsense. I was trying to put the fire out, it will now continue for another 50k. --Gibnews (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we have now had the 50k of waffle, I've made a proposal, including your correction of my typo - I changed 'majority' to 'many' and did not notice the the. Rather than me change the article, if you agree and there is no major reason not to, I've suggested you actually apply it in order to avoid an edit war or to seem I am pushing my wording unfairly.  we can then move on to greater things, like understanding digital tv streams and determining why my DVB-T transmitter does not work which is more appropriate to 2010.  --Gibnews (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I think that 'peacefully' expresses it better, 'without further violence' applies equally to both sides. I suggest you apply the change, and archive the discussions and we move on. However, no doubt there will be another dispute upcoming. Strangely enough in the period prior to Franco there was peace and understanding between Gibraltar and Spain. Then as now Gibraltar contributed to the well being of the Campo area, just now they are ungrateful about it. --Gibnews (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Roman departure from Britain
I agree with the move that you made, but those types of major consensus changes should probably be allowed to sit on the talk page of an article for a day or two. This allows users to actually comment on it if they aren't constantly on Wikipedia. Good edit though, Sadads (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks, comment appreciated and digested. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

extremely annoying stubborn gits
I see, "neutral arbiters" shouldn't take sides, nor should they make obnoxious remarks on Mercopress. Particularly when they express views that are far, far from neutral. Don't give up the day job and I suggest you stop following me around. Justin talk 17:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mercopress? Never heard of it before tonight. Do you think I've been cyberstalking you there? Or am I incorrectly taking a general reference as applying to me, in which case I apologise? Perhaps I should remember that irony and missing referents are useful and sophisticated uses of language, allowing as they do a sympathetic, but otherwise ambiguous response to self-deprecatory comments? Perhaps, and I suggest this tentatively, we both should? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * , if that isn't you from Feb 5, then I apologise. Seems someone was shit stirring.  That was the only reason I took offence, being in the possession of a sense of humour.  Yes it appeared I was being stalked, seems I probably was but not by you.  Again my apologies.  Justin talk 19:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely another Richard. Seems like a bit of a git. I can hope that he's using someone else's name. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I have a good idea which of our mutual acquaintances it was. Justin talk 20:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

/Gibraltar

AGF/RS
Hi Richard. Posting here because I've said enough at RS for now. The editor who distinguishes AGF editors vs sources is right. This is a site operated by Gibnews, even if he is archiving content that was not authored by him. The same stringent standards Wikipedia seeks in its sources as those which academia seeks should not be lowered simply because it's a fellow editor who owns the source. If anything, the standards should be even higher because of the potential conflict of interest. I'm sure, as a prescriber of medications sold by for-profit pharmaceutical companies, you will understand that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems that to get stuff onto gibnews.net you have to sign up, and pay a fee, and you can only do it if they find you're a reputable organization. Some bodies use it as a main outlet for their releases. This is as far as you can get from some fly-by-night blog operated by a lone loony.


 * If that's correct, there is a strong argument for regarding their stuff as, at least, a good primary source for the organisations that put it up. I'd like to see evidence that it is correct, and that shouldn't be too hard for Gibnews to provide. I agree that there is an element of risk with an software manager who might potentially abuse whatever power he might have over a news source, but in this case I would be inclined to believe Gibnews when he says that he doesn't edit the stuff. I'd be surprised if he could without being caught out. I've asked for specific third-party evidence but in the meantime I am inclined to trust what Gibnews says about gibnews.net. HTH. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I also have major concerns about his judgement wrt sources. Whenever publications by the BBC, CIA, Britannica, the FCO, the EU disagree with him he denounces them as factually inaccurate or out of date or both. I'm serious, he has rubbished all those and more. Even the Govt of Gib itself. Sheesh, you would not believe some of the conversations I've had with him about sourcing for the article over the last few years. (FYI I'm a middle aged Cambridge graduate, not some nincompoop). The mind boggles how he defends this source to the death yet pooh poohs what noone would deny is a RS. The only explanation is that it is HIS site and he likes cherry picking from it to advance his sometimes reasonable but sometimes utterly bizarre and misinformed views. eg on what kind of currency the Gibraltar Pound is.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A further thought - if indeed these organisations must pay a fee as you are suggesting then that makes the situation even worse. That would mean Gibnews is receiving monetary compensation for posting material online which he is then attempting to link to (AKA advertise) on Wikipedia.  See Source soliciting  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I share doubts about Gibnews' judgement at times, but that doesn't invalidate the use of a Web gateway for reputable organizations as a reputable primary source for those organizations. This needs to be taken on its own merits. What evidence about the transparency of gibnews.net, and Gibnews' lack of editorial control, would allay your fears?


 * Which college by the way? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Pembroke 1975-9


 * The only thing which would really satisfy me would be if the reputable organisations concerned gave their seal of approval to the site. For example, if the GoG said "archived press releases can be found at....".


 * That would certainly be good, I hope that Gibnews can provide it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * College? I'm a bit uneasy about posting info that can ID oneself in this day and age of permanent online archiving but if it were a crossword puzzle, the clue might be "metal, jangly, kept in one's trouser pockets", and datewise, I don't wish to make you feel too old but you had been gone a good few years after I got there;-).   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No overlap. I don't even recall any acquaintances from your admirable college. Oh well. I'll creep off to my coffin then. Personally I've more or less given up trying to maintain anonymity, I just keep passwords and bank details very secret, and try not to write anything that would be embarrassing if read out in court. Or would expose me to violent nutcases, more than I am already. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Self Governing
It must be the effect of St Valentine, but RH and myself have agreed with each other twice. See the talk page; apply your changes as amended quick, then archive the talk page and hope ww3 does not break out. Justin is having a wikibreak and others a siesta. The wording is fair, so lets go for it. --Gibnews (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar wording
Personally I think there should be a short reference to Gibraltar being internally self governing in the lead, because it is something that is manifestly true and is often asserted not to be the case.

For the politics section perhaps you could work in some of this, with the existing references.

''Under the 2006 Constitution Gibraltar is internally self-governing with an elected parliament comprising eight Government ministers and seven opposition members. The Governor represents the HM the Queen as head of State and is responsible for appointments made on her behalf in consultation with the head of the elected government. The UK is responsible for defence and foreign relations, apart from those with Spain where there is a trilateral process of talks in which Gibraltar has equal representation.''

--Gibnews (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your blue helmet act
Thank you indeed for the mediation. It surely was not easy to act as the blue helmet in the middle of the crossfire. About Perkin's book, I am very glad that you read it and liked it. I agree that it makes a lot of sense. BTW, I am sure I have very unfriendly ancestors too (quite a motley mix, actually: all kinds of barbarians, Iberians, Celtics, Arabs, Jews...); in fact, I'm pretty sure we all do (I mean, have ancestors much more unfriendly than most of us are): that, and more trivial things -like mediators in WP-, makes me keep my faith in humankind and -to keep the topic ;)- in the progression of civilization, at least in the very long term. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Patronising
And being patronising is? So even handed of you, as always. Justin talk 18:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Partial strike through of comment, unfair of me to have made it and for that I apologise. Justin talk 21:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't deal with it any more
I'm taking the page off my watchlist. If you stay, feel free to use my name in support of the SR wording (note I provided a couple of travel books too which support it) and if there are any "polls" which need voting in, let me know. Good luck! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to lose you from this particular project, though I understand your frustration only too well. Thanks, and I wish you happier editing in future. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

TPG
You might want to read WP:TPG about moving talk pages around. Justin talk 10:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I did. Layout and sectioning. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A point to p0nder
Really? J'acccuse. Well not really but you might want to ponder that lumping everyone into the same camp of narrow nationalism, whilst it may be a convenient excuse to stop listening and ignore what they have to say, may not ring true. And the more you unfairly do so, the more vociferously and vigorously they will protest about it. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 09:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom case
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests 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—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, EyeSerene talk 13:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case has opened
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, 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, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Workshop.

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

Gibnews
Hi Richard, I'm not really interested in Gibnews identity. I've provided all the information I've got to the ArbCom, so it's up to them to decide whether his undeclared COI is relevant (I think it is, not because of his activist role in the Gibraltarian political life, but because it determines his agenda and his unwillingness to follow the principles of this project). In a more personal fashion, I don't have actually time. But, if you see my contributions in the last months, I've focused on the creation of articles (see my user page with a list of my last creations) while avoiding to waste too much time in controversial articles (although I have an opinion on them, obviously). However, I do think that the presence of Gibnews and, to a lesser extent, of Justin in Gibraltar-related articles is negative for the project (especially in the case of Gibnews, as he's openly declared which his agenda is). You'll possibly find it interesting to review this. It's the list of all the books I've been purchasing in the last months and a clear prove, I thing, of my sincere interest in the topic. I haven't seen any similar attitude on "the other side" (well, Gibnews does not need books as he self-publishes his own material). To sum up, I'm not interested in Gibnews and his affiliation with pressure groups, but in the interest of the project. Anyway, thank you for your time and your sincere greetings --Ecemaml (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Saint patrick vandalism
Thanks for catching that. I changed my password. The Llama! (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Boobquake
Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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) 23:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar draft wording
A page for trying out possible changes to the Gibraltar article: /Gibraltar

Ecemaml
Others have tried but could you try and have a word with him to stop bugging me and stalking my every edit on wikipedia. I'm getting very irritated by it. Justin talk 14:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll answer this comment by email. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

political status melilla
Hi Richard. I have been reading somes articles about Spain and i have found in the article of melilla a paragraph that i think we can improve (really is a copy of the political status of ceuta. This paragraph describe the situation of all spanish africa). What dou you think? i have written my thoughs in disccussion. Best regards. Verboom (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Help requested
Hi there; how's that going? You seem to be both an experienced and accessible editor so I thought you could help me. I was checking the sources displayed in the Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006 article when I discovered the Gibraltar constitutional referendum, 2006‎ one, which at most seems to me like an excised section of the former by content and extension. So I've been thinking in merging them but I know nothing of the process. What do you think about it? Could you lend me a hand? Thanks in advance! Cremallera (talk) 11:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, thank you very much! I will fix the double redirects indeed, but I can't do it right now. Hopefully I'll have some wiki time tonight. Cheers. Cremallera (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Done! Now what? Should we nominate for speedy deletion the Gibraltar constitutional referendum, 2006‎ article? (I'm totally lost with WP procedures). Cremallera (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not, we leave it as a redirect (as it is now).
 * Many thanks for the hard work. I haven't done a merge before, so this was a useful experience for me. But it took more time than I had expected. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaza aid shipment
Hi Richard,

Please check the this talk page Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid regarding your recent edit in the lead. The wording has been discussed at length and a consensus reached. However if you feel that the wording still needs to change please add your thoughts. In the meantime I'm going to revert the change to reflect the discussion page. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I had. Zuchinni one, thanks for your message and revert; I'll post any further discussion on the relevant talk page only. At the moment we have a statement in the lead "passenger accounts claim that the Israelis began attacking the boat passengers prior to the boarding" that is not supported by the reference. The reference actually says that passenger accounts claim that the Israelis fired warning shots and used sound, gas, and smoke bombs prior to the boarding, which isn't quite the same thing. While of course RS may require this comment to be updated very soon, I suggest that we should stick carefully to what the references say. I propose to re-do my edit soon, unless someone else chooses to do it or gives a good reason to avoid doing so. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi again Richard, I'm not going to change your edit, but I will add it to the new sticky topics section since this as been discussed before Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid. You may want to discuss the wording further there.  Zuchinni one (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A good solution, thanks. Actually I think the discussion didn't quite tackle this specific issue. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Attila
hi richard, the work is from well-known artist living in hungary and wikipedia has bought the rights from the artist. thank you for your interest. regards.--Finn Diesel (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

hi again richard, i strongly condamn you about your agressive copy/paste article in the "Hunnish language" page. it is unacceptable and it contains elements from turkophobia.--Finn Diesel (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments, they may be better addressed on the relevant talk pages. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, Finn Diesel seems to be referring to this diff in which I moved (rather than added) the text to which he objected. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Richard, without being involved in the prior discussion, I happened across the Attila the Hun article, and was curious about the image representations of him. Investigating, I discovered you and another editor had made comments on the discussion page. I've answered your comments, largely agreeing with you. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 03:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

why do you remove pictures in Attila article? its not developing, it seems like destruction to me.--Finn Diesel (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Finn, there was no removal, only rearrangement. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Richard, just to keep the record straight, I deleted the photo from the Gallery, after you moved it. I had asked for an opinion about the copyright justification, and an administrator marked for deletion in Commons after seven days. Then I realized I was putting the cart before the horse, and should let the Commons process take place first.


 * As of this moment, a different administrator has blocked Finn Diesel. He may be trying to avoid the block by editing anonymously, including replacing the Gallery photo that I was just about to replace, anyhow, at least until the Commons copyright tag is resolved.


 * Just a heads up, I'm not strongly vested in the discussion, it just seemed as though your talk page comments bore examination. Cheers, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

wll done, you and your mate has removed all pictures from Attila article, i want to ask you a question, why dont you do the same to the article of Roman Empire? try if you are neutral enough.--Finn Diesel (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please check the edit summary or the diff; I removed no pictures. I put them into an appropriate section of their own, as I proposed some time ago on the talk page. However, I agree with ARB's removal of the image without appropriate copyright information, and indeed would support the removal of the remaining much later pictures. Most of them seem to be relevant only to re-imagining Attila and not to the historical figure. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

you may use the talk page before reverting.--Finn Diesel (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Finn, I've been doing that. I would be pleased to discuss all of your edits on the appropriate pages. As I've mentioned, I apologize for my lack of Turkish and will do my very best to express myself clearly and to understand any good arguments that you may put forward. So far, I have seen only edit-warring. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Attila the Hun. 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. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Fences &amp;  Windows  12:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm trying hard to communicate with an editor who doesn't reciprocate. The edits I performed appear to have the support of other editors, see . I'll keep on trying to discuss! Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Crossing of the Rhine 405/406?
Re your reply to me on the Crossing of the Rhine talk page, the note I referred to reads: "The arguments of A.R. Birley, The Roman Government of Britain (Oxford, 2005), 455-460, very nearly persuade me to abandon my attemt, in 'Barbarians in Gaul, Usurpers in Britain', Britannia 31 (2000): 325-45, to redate the the Rhine crossing from the traditional 31 December 406 to 405."

I wasn't able to chase up the reference, so I emailed Dr Kulikowski and he clarified, but I'm not certain if it's appropriate to quote personal communications, even on an article talk page. --Jmullaly (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest it's fine to include anything on a talk page that helps the project forward, and more or less anything goes on a personal talk page. Many thanks for taking the trouble and letting me know - all my reference books are in storage for a house move so I'm a bit stuck myself. I look forward to further enlightenment. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Bow
Sorry, i don't have any smaller images. The picture is actually a panorama, if i did it normally, the images would cut out. By the way, love the new description. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vibrantspirit (talk • contribs) 20:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Improvised vs. cold weapon
Hi Richard. I saw that you recently changed my rewording of cold weapons (a broad term I've never actually heard used before) to improvised weapons in the Gaza flotilla raid article. In your edit summary, you noted that "knives are cold weapons, but are not improvised," but in the improvised weapons article it mentions machetes, shivs, and kitchen knives. My understanding is that the majority of knives recovered from the MV Mavi Marmara were consistent with those that would be used in a kitchen, and would thus be considered improvised when used as weapons. This Israeli paper, for instance, says that "IHH members improvised weapons including metal rods and knives cut from the ship's metal rails, which they used to attack the soldiers... IHH activists also gathered all the knives from six cafeterias on the ship, as well as axes from fire extinguishers on the deck, all of which served as weapons against Israeli commandos." Thoughts? ← George talk 10:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment. My change was based on the idea that a knife requires no improvisation to be a weapon, nor for that matter does an axe. I quite agree, cutting up the railings does count as improvisation, but my suggestion is that classifying all the weapons used as purely "improvised" is a definition open to challenge, and I'd prefer to have a word that is unambiguously correct. What do other editors think? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI
I sense trouble ahead... and  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And again.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting your voting proposition...
...but I thought that anyone asking to change such a hard earned consensus should put at least some effort in stating and sourcing their case before we even think about voting. I hope I didn't seem too rude. If you think I'm wrong, please tell me. Sorry again. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, maybe my proposition was premature. Thanks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

ARBCOM

 * Please see this addendum. This is an ongoing problem and I am making sure everyone is aware. JodyBtalk 14:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gibraltar
I would respond but there appears to be an issue with that page. On the run so will try again tomorrow. Justin talk 08:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Cyclehelmets.org contact page broken
Hi, the Cyclehelmets.org contact page is broken. I assume you are the same Richard as on Cyclehelmets.org. I'm trying to report a fact error, very frustrating. Please contact me. Erik Sandblom (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Info
I've stopped using my real life ID due to inappropriate comments on wikipedia and some harassment off-wiki. I'd be grateful if you'd stop using it please. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. There may be times when it's necessary to mention that the two identities are one person, but I will do my best. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

AE Courtesy Note
This is a courtesy note to let you know that you have been mentioned by name at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement and a proposed user conduct solution has been posted. You are named in a proposed sanction. If you have any response or objection, please note it at the request. Vassyana (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
 * Richard Keatinge is warned to refrain from incivility and bad faith accusations, and encouraged to utilize appropriate venues for resolving user conduct complaints. Any future talk page disruption will be handled under discretionary sanctions (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar).

I have altered my suggested remedy for Wee Curry Monster, based on your suggestion he should be allowed to continue in discussions. Please check the enforcement thread and share your thoughts. Vassyana (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment about AE thread
A review of your 'recent' edits indicates a return to civility and focus on content. I commend that and highly recommend you continue down that road. It is best for everyone.

Your comments were a key factor in the degradation of the talk page environment from my outside perspective. That is why I crafted a named sanction. It is not a recent issue, so it was limited to a warning.

Consider the warning a note your comments in response to the bold edits and participation of WCM were over the line. Paragraphs about the incompetence of other editors, repeatedly bemoaning the presence of someone, etc is terrible form. It poisons the well and baits them into poor responses. Stick to the content on the article talk page. Use appropriate venues for user conduct to address those issues. If you find yourself arguing in circles, it would be best to seek out dispute resolution.

If you are ever unsure of the appropriate avenue, please ask me. I've been all over this place, from answering third opinion requests to serving on ArbCom. I'm sure I can usually point you towards a couple of avenues to resolve any outstanding issues. Vassyana (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Duly accepted. I will readjust my ideas of constructive discourse. Thanks for the offer of help in future. I hope I don't need to take you up on it, but you never know. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the cordial response. I appreciate you taking the response and advice on-board. I know things can get frustrating at times, but try to stay focused on building the encyclopedia. Whether you need advice for user conduct or just some help sorting out content issues, let me know. I will honestly do my best to help resolve the situation. Vassyana (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Result
This is logged at the ArbCom case page. If you have any further questions or comments, please leave them on my talk page. Vassyana (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wee Curry Monster is subject to a standard 0RR restriction for all articles about or concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar for 30 days. As with normal revert restrictions, good faith edits reverting vandals and known sockpuppets are not subject to this restriction.
 * Wee Curry Monster is warned against bad faith accusations, that further disruption will result in escalating sanctions and advised to pursue dispute resolution to resolve any disagreements.
 * Richard Keatinge is warned to refrain from incivility and encouraged to utilize appropriate venues for resolving user conduct complaints. Any future talk page disruption will be handled under discretionary sanctions (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar).
 * All editors on the articles and  and their associated talk pages active within the past 30 days will be warned that any disruption, including incivility, edit warring and tendentious conduct, is subject to discretionary sanctions (Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar).

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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar. 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) 01:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gibraltar
I have provided a warning about discussion participation at Talk:Gibraltar. 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. 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)