|
<font face=arial size=3 color="#0000FF">Please do not edit archive contents</td>
</tr></table>
== Your editions in Communications in Gibraltar ==
Gibnews, most of the figures in the article dates back to 2006. A lot of time has passed and they are obviously outdated. That's the obvious meaning of the template. Instead of removing it you could try to update the figures.
On the other hand, it seems as if you've not learnt anything from the recent arbitration case. Per [[WP:BRD]] you're supposed to explain why you remove ''El Faro de Gibraltar'' instead of simply reverting. I guess you have a reason but unless stated your edition is faulty (not to talk about you lack of edition summary). --[[User:Ecemaml|Ecemaml]] ([[User talk:Ecemaml|talk]]) 12:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
:The article is not out of date, because little has changed, however as you reqested an update I did one removing references to Vox and el faro as they '''no longer exist''' and mentioning the 3G network etc. So whats the problem? Its now current.--[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] ([[User talk:Gibnews#top|talk]]) 22:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar]] ==
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
*Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing [[Gibraltar]] or other articles concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioral standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
*[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Discretionary sanctions|Discretionary sanctions]] imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently [[WP:AE|the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard]]) or the Arbitration Committee.
*{{user|Gibnews}} 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.
*{{user|Justin A Kuntz}} 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.
*{{user|Ecemaml}} 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 [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]], remaining [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] and [[WP:NPA|avoiding personal attacks]], utilizing [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to [[WP:DR|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'', --[[User:AlexandrDmitri|-- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri)]] ([[User talk:AlexandrDmitri|talk]]) 23:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
==Comment==
1. Noted
2. Given the bias shown to foreign editors promoting a fictitious view of Gibraltar, a subject I have first hand knowledge about, I no longer consider Wikipedia a reliable or worthwhile source of information.
3. I note that there were submissions made to the arbitrators concerning myself which I have not seen. and consider it would have been courtesy to copy these to me on email and allow me the right of reply. This was requested but never happened. --[[User:Gibnews|Gibnews]] ([[User talk:Gibnews#top|talk]]) 19:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
| 