Talk:Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain

message: I'm a bit at a loss as to how to nicely tidy up the references in this article. I think at the moment there's a mix of plain links, cites etc.. Could the source list be merged into one list with a prefix in the link e.g. "(Spanish)", "(British)" if a need to differentiate is required (if indeed at all)? NathanLee 14:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisation of references 

message: I've removed the excerpt from the constitution, as it's not directly related to the territorial dispute. Miken32 (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Constitution

message: On 8, 9 and 100 January, I started an attempt to improve the status of this article, IMHO very much faulty. The summary of the changes can be seen below (with a full description of the changes in User:Ecemaml/Nursery/Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain)
Edition #1 (23:59, 8 January 2010; see Diff)
Summary: British position: Removing false information, as explained in the talk page and in Talk:La Línea de la Concepción
Summary of changes: As explained in the talk page and in the talk page of the article on La Línea de la Concepción, an unknown Historical Society claims that something was agreed on the Treaty of Seville. A simple inspection of such Treaty reveals that its false
Actual changes: the section (which has been challenged for two weeks) has been removed
Type (Editorial/Content): C
Edition #2 (00:00, 9 January 2010; see Diff)
Summary: British position: Expanding (with references)
Summary of changes: As the source provided (by the UK government) does not provide a definition according to Public International Law (about how it got the sovereignty on the disputed territory), it is complemented by a secondary source stating that the British claims on "continious possession" translates into prescription. The secondary source is from a British scholar, Peter Gold. Its works are used, for instance, to support the assertion on Gibraltarians being a nation (see Gibraltarian people)
Actual changes: the section on the British position is enhanced with the Gold source. The source by the British government remains
Type (E/C): C
Edition #3 (00:01, 9 January 2010; see Diff)
Summary: Positions of each side: Non neutral, as it takes one of the parts' POV as neutral statements
Summary of changes: A sentence is removed. It is placed in the general section in clause "Positions of each side" and describes the problem according to the British POV. As WP:NPOV clearly states: A biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth
Actual changes: the sentence is removed
Type (E/C): C
Edition #4 (00:04, 9 January 2010; see Diff)
Summary: Spanish position: Moving to the British position section
Summary of changes: The Spanish position is provided a source by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Spain. A statement on the British position on the Airport of Gibraltar (which lays in the disputed territory) is removed in order to be moved to the coresponding section
Actual changes: reference from the Spanish Government is provided. A section on the British position on the dispute is removed (it will be included in next edition)
Type (E/C): C
Edition #5 (00:04, 9 January 2010; see Diff)
Summary: British position: Moved
Summary of changes: The text removed in the previous edition is restored
Actual changes: The text removed from the clause "Spanish position" is included in "British position"
Type (E/C): E
Edition #6 (00:05, 9 January 2010; see Diff)
Summary: Sources: As with History of Gibraltar
Summary of changes: To apply to biography the same edition that was already done in History of Gibraltar and was not challenged at all. The edition was that and was explained in the following way: "Bibliography: - rm irrelevant biog info - this is not a biography of historians"
Actual changes: The description on the author of each source (but not the sources themselves) is removed
Type (E/C): C
Edition #7 (00:08, 9 January 2010; see Diff)
Summary: Moving references
Summary of changes: A reference is moved from the "Notes" section to the "British position" section. It was used only once
Actual changes: The reference is moved. It used the  template
Type (E/C): E
Edition #8 (00:10, 9 January 2010; see Diff)
Summary: Gibraltar position: 
Summary of changes: As the section describing the Gibraltarian position is not referenced, sources are required
Actual changes: 
Type (E/C): C
Edition #9 (22:50, 10 January 2010 ; see Diff)
Summary: Making the map a little bit smaller
Summary of changes: The initial map is reduced
Actual changes: 300px changes to 280px. It is also precissed that the isthmus is larger, only its South part is under de facto British sovereignty and is claimed but Spain (the rest is under Spanish sovereignty)
Type (E/C): E
Edition #10 (23:03, 10 January 2010 ; see Diff)
Summary: Sources: Merging
Summary of changes: Instead of having the sources classified by nationality, and given the difficults to made it properly, all the sources are listed in a single section (much in the same fashion as in History of Gibraltar
Actual changes: the four sources (actually not used) are listed in a single section ("Sources"). The  templates are also removed
Type (E/C): C
Edition #11 (23:05, 10 January 2010 ; see Diff)
Summary: Moving to sources section
Summary of changes: The Gold's book is moved to the "Sources" section, as it is foreseen that it will be used several times.
Actual changes: Inline references are moved to the "Sources" section. Sources are also ordered (alphabetically)
Type (E/C): E
Edition #12 (23:06, 10 January 2010 ; see Diff)
Summary: Moving
Summary of changes: Sections "References" and "See also" are moved according to the Manual of Style.
Actual changes: Sections "References" and "See also" are moved before the "Sources" section
Type (E/C): E
Edition #13 (23:07, 10 January 2010 ; see Diff)
Summary: Spanish position: +Map
Summary of changes: there is no map depicting the dispute.
Actual changes: A map illustrating the Spanish position is added to the section "Spanish position" (unfortunately it's in Galician language)
Type (E/C): C
Summarizing:
# Editions 5, 7, 9, 11 and 12 are purely editorial.
# Edition 1 removes text that comes from an unreliable source asserting information that happens to be false (it had a  template for two weeks)
# Edition 2 enhances the description of the British position including an additional source
# Edition 3 removes a sentence describing the dispute wording as reality one of the conflicting POVs
# Edition 4 includes a proper source of the Spanish position (from the Spanish Ministry of Foreing Affairs instead from a newspaper)
# Edition 6 removes the short bio attached to each author of the bibliography mentioned. Such an edition is modelled on a similar edition done in History of Gibraltar months ago and unchallenged
# Edition 8 asks for source about the Gibraltarian stance (no one is currently provided)
# Edition 10 removes grouping by nationality in the sections clause. As with edition 6, it is modelled on a similar edition done in History of Gibraltar months ago and unchallenged
# Edition 13 introducies a map illustrating the Spanish position. No similar map was previously available.
Well, the issue here is a set of three of hardly justified reversions that have wiped all my changes. Here you have it:
#"rs content and cites removed" (00:45, 9 January 2010). Reversion between editions 8 and 9 above. It remains edition 1 above.
#"rs sources and material, if you embed other changes when removing content - tough and do not post on my talk page" (23:12, 10 January 2010). Reversion after edition 13 above. 
#"Undid revision 337086705 by Ecemaml (talk) rs material again. Reversion after edition 13 above.
After the first reversion I tried to contact the editor in order to figure out what he was exactly referring to (the edition summary was not much helpful). As his reversion was made after edition 8 and edition 1 was not reverted I guessed he was referring to edition 3 (a clear POV sentence, as it takes one of the sides' POV as the neutral description of facts). However, the revertion removed two valid references. It also wiped . Therefore, I talked to the editor (22:59, 10 January 2010, see here):
:...could you please don't use the reversion as editorial tool? If you feel other guys' editions are faulty, try to fix them by editing a bit instead of simply using the reversion. In this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disputed_status_of_the_isthmus_between_Gibraltar_and_Spain&action=historysubmit&diff=336709650&oldid=336703417 particular case, apart from providing a incorrect reason (the only quotation in the text was simply relocated, it was duly explained which texts were removed and why and in fact the only sources removed were the ones that you wiped with your reversion -the Gold book and the Spanish Foreign Affairs report, the FCO text was also relocated), you removed a template asking for references (), something that shouldn't be done
The editor did the following:
# He left (23:11, 10 January 2010) a short message in this talk page (see above) asserting that the source my edition 1 refers to (that is, the source that states that the Treaty of Seville said something that it didn't actually say) is reliable (see here). However, as such a statement has been extensively refuted (see Talk:La Línea de la Concepción#short on facts), a mere statement on its validity (sort of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT) is not enough. Funny enough, the comment by the reversor refers to a text that has not actually reverted (edition 1).
# He partially reverted my editions (23:12, 10 January 2010; all but edition 1)
# He left me a message (23:14, 10 January 2010), stating that he does not read my messages
# He removed my message (23:14, 10 January 2010)
In the meantime, I had returned to my editions (I reverted on 22:47, 10 January 2010, see here, stating that "No content or cites has been removed beyond what has been explained in the talk page. Please, don't use the reversion as edit tool. If you disagree, restore only what is disputed (and explain it)" and clarified (22:49, 10 January 2010) why I had done edition 3 above (it had an edition summary, but just in case; the message can be seen above).
As the reversion on 23:12, 10 January 2010 was even more meaningless (edition summary says "rs sources and material, if you embed other changes when removing content - tough and do not post on my talk page"), I reverted again (23:19, 10 January 2010), explaining, again, the reason of my edition ("Restoring. The user has been provided duly explanations both in the talk page, in the user's talk page and as said in the summaries in the talk page of La Línea de la Concepción")
To sum up, it seems to be a disagreement on the presence of a sentence of 23 words ("When peace prevailed, the Spanish occupied half of the 'neutral territory' and the British a corresponding half, with a fence demarcating the frontier"). And I say "it seems" as it is really difficult to figure out the rationale behind the reversions. Because of that, two valid references, a map describing the dispute and a template asking for references, as blind and unhelpful reversions are used instead of specific editions. I can't help thinking that reversion is not a valid editorial tool. Again, if there is disagreement about a specific removal, it's that text what must be reintroduced (explaining why) instead of simply reverting.
Therefore, I'm returning to the edition on 23:19, 10 January 2010. I'd like no reversion would be used in this article any more. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: NO, if you revert to re-introduce contentious edits I will revert again.  I suggest you follow on your own advice and introduce the none contentious element only.  There is nothing to stop you doing that.  A revert is a valid edit tool. Justin talk 22:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unjustified reversions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100105183128/http://www.maec.es/subwebs/Embajadas/Londres/es/MenuPpal/Gibraltar/Documents/000.001.002.003%20T%C3%ADtulo.%20Prefacio.%C3%8Dndice.%20Informe%20(27.02.08).doc to http://www.maec.es/subwebs/Embajadas/Londres/es/MenuPpal/Gibraltar/Documents/000.001.002.003%20Título.%20Prefacio.Índice.%20Informe%20(27.02.08).doc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051213211855/http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/OT13.pdf to http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/OT13.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maec.es/subwebs/Embajadas/Londres/es/MenuPpal/Gibraltar/Documents/000.001.002.003%20T%C3%ADtulo.%20Prefacio.%C3%8Dndice.%20Informe%20%2827.02.08%29.doc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070102020537/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmfaff/366/36616.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmfaff/366/36616.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Disputed status of the isthmus between Gibraltar and Spain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707141815/http://www.anayainfantilyjuvenil.com/catalogos/capitulos_promocion/LU00046301.pdf to http://www.anayainfantilyjuvenil.com/catalogos/capitulos_promocion/LU00046301.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified