User talk:Gibnews/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Mary Celeste

Dear GibNews I appreciate your contributions to the Mary Celeste entry and your desire to keep this story grounded in reliable sources. I note that you reverted a minor but I think very human detail about Mary Celeste's shipboard cat. I can see why a small animal aboard the ship would not figure in any of the inquiry documents in Gibraltar. However this fact comes from a very respected historian and writer from Mary Celeste's home province named Thomas H. Raddall who based it on research with the ships owners and Briggs family. A referenced fact from a reliable published source should, I think be a welcome addition to a Wikipedia article.Letterofmarque (talk)

Gibraltar border town

Who says La Línea de la Concepción is not a town? Have you ever been there? Well I haven't, but I though maybe you have, since you live quite close, and since they say the border is open. Then you should have seen what I see on this photo [1]. Certainly looks like a town, doesn't it?--Ratzer 20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It most is certainly a town. However Gibraltar does not have a border with La Linea, it has a border with Spain. Its controlled by the Spanish national police and the state, not the municipal authority ot anyone in the towm.

I've certainly been there, but perhaps now you see the point ? --Gibnews 15:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

map needed

Hi Gibnews, as a local, could you obtain or create a sketch map that shows the boundaries of the seven "Major Residential Areas"? And could you obtain the area figures of those districts (km²)? So far, we only have population figures. I have written to the Gib govt about those issues but never received a response, unfortunately.--Ratzer 09:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You won't as there are no administrative districts, although they are shown as such on Wikipedia and may be referred to being different 'areas' locally its just a convenience - there are no formal boundaries or difference. From the frontier to Europa Point its one place. --Gibnews 15:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The article does say that the "Major Residential Areas" are NOT administrative districts. They must nevertheless have exact borders, otherwise the census of 2001 could not give exact population figures. Appendix V of the document [2] explains which Enumeration Areas belong to each Major Residential Area, and in the preceding appendix the Enumeration Areas are described by streets, street sections or buildings belonging to them.--Ratzer 11:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the 2001 census, it does indeed break Gibraltar down into some 90 enumeration areas, and then consolidate them into major residential areas. However apart from the purposes of that census, the areas have no real purpose nor are the enumneration areas necessarily contiguous so it might be hard to show them on a map. However I assume you have a copy of the census, so all you need is a map of Gibraltar and a lot of time !

http://www.dotcom.gi/map/

Gibraltar is also broken down into districts for the purposes of elections, we had one last week, due to all the development things are constantly changing, godamn cranes everywhere !

http://www.gibnet.com/images/housing.jpg

--Gibnews 22:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

How many settlements are there? Is it just the main city on the west, and two villages on the east. Europa point has some buildings as well, is that part of the main town/city? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YourPTR! (talk • contribs) 14:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

I award you the British barnstar of merit for all your work on British relaited articals, and espeshally on Gibraltar, keep up the good work!!!--Boris 1991 18:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I award you the British barnstar of merit for all your work on British relaited articals, and espeshally on Gibraltar, keep up the good work!!!--Boris 1991 18:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome--Boris 1991 07:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Fly Gibraltar

You up for "expanding" the article *nudge* ? Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to expand it with, however sometime down the line I will nominate it for deletion a third time as being a non notable waste of space. --Gibnews (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that would be absolutely tragic! In fact, I'm thinking of nominating it for some sort of award. Never has there been a more worthy article. Biofoundationsoflanguage (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime my time-machine awaits... *Doctor Who theme tune starts playing* Chris.B (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The press releases are being written embargoed for April 1st. --Gibnews (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Size of Gibraltar

I believe my figure is accurate. In 1991 the British Government published a figure for Gibraltar of 2.25 square miles, in 2001 this had increased to 2.53 square miles. I added the size of the island you aquired recently which brings the total up to 2.642 square miles. As far as I know the only other possible reclamation taking place (or planned) is on the east side? Anyway, the 2.53 square mile statistic is certainly out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YourPTR! (talk • contribs) 14:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know when the Island is due for completion? Is it going to be given an official name at some point? I wouldn't be surprised if Gibraltar reaches 3 square miles in area or more soon. :) YourPTR! (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe its called 'The Island' :) --Gibnews (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Censorship of material warning

Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. Thank you. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why that was there in the first place, its got nothing to do with the article. Just taking out the rubbish, thats being tidy not censorious --Gibnews (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

New Media

Okay, I think I understand. It looked confusing at first, but now I can see how it fits. Thanks for letting me know. Spencer^T♦C 14:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

True, very true. Spencer^T♦C 01:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltarians

I do not know how to help you with the problem. Sorry. Lightmouse (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Caruana article

Hi Gibnews:

Just so you know I'm not trying to be a nuisance on references in the article. The policy on biographies of living persons requires cautious use of references. Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 12:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the need for references, but a lot of the appropriate material is on video rather than the Internet. Nothing I have added is at all contentious or likely to cause the man to call down his attack lawyers, as he lives not that far away from me ... --Gibnews (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

New article

Hi there, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind starting the article Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002 as you already have some information on it in your user page and you probably have easier access to the relevant references. :o)

On another note, I've tried moving some of the 'election' articles back to use the term Gibraltar instead of Gibraltarian but as these have already been moved from this once, it's not allowed... --Gibmetal 77^talk 13:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK will look into it, though that was corrected that already, its a pity some of the editors don't understand the difference ! --Gibnews (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But as you can see it's been reverted again. Could you at some point take it to WP:RM as I really shouldn't be spending so much time on Wikipedia at the moment. Thanks --Gibmetal 77^talk 16:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant thanks! --Gibmetal 77^talk 18:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Page moves

Please don't move pages by cutting and pasting. If you can't move a page, you must go through a WP:RM request, as otherwise page histories are lost.

Also, Gibraltarian is a legitimate adjective to refer to things related to Gibraltar, not just the people - see [3]. Regards, пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You reference cited is nonsense, there is no such organisation as Gibraltarian Customs As I have said, Gibraltar can be both a noun and an adjective and is the correct term to describe something 'of Gibraltar' Gibraltarian refers to the people.

Although I note your comments about my correction of this error, it could have been avoided had you discussed the matter first before changing the name. --Gibnews (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I won't revert to the changes you made because they are against Wikipedia policy. If you want to move the pages because you think they are wrong, you must make a WP:RM request. Pages cannot be moved by cutting and pasting because it breaks the GDFL. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Number 57 is quite right about this. Please don't ever try to do cut-and-paste moves. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No he is quite wrong about the title. I would appreciate it if you were more polite in your comments on my user page - you clearly could benefit by reading this. However, as you have joined in I request that YOU sort out the mess that Number 57 has made with the pages about Gibraltar elections and has failed to resolve after having the situation explained and having been asked nicely. The correct use of the term is as I have stated, use of the word Gibraltarian would imply that ONLY Gibraltarians could participate, which is not the case. Its a Gibraltar election. --Gibnews (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should have been more specific. He's quite right about not doing cut-and-paste moves - it's not allowed. I have no particular view about the page title but the place to go is WP:RM, as he says, not buggering up the page history by cutting-and-pasting. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I transferred it to 'Gibraltar general election' correctly, However Number57 has changed it back without any discussion. Can I suggest you either sort it out, or complain to the person responsible for starting this nonsense, who has had the difference between Gibraltar and Gibraltarian explained to him now by three people who use these terms on a daily basis.

It would help if you pointed things out nicely rather than being rude and helped sort out the mess, rather than complaining to me for trying and then saying you have no interest in its accuracy. --Gibnews (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, let me put this simply: We are not allowed to do cut-and-paste moves of content. This is because it destroys the page history. (See the bolded text at Help:Moving a page#Wikipedia-specific help). If you want to move a page to another title, you will need to ask at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I'm not "complaining to you for trying" - I'm simply pointing out that you're doing something that's not permitted and pointing you to the right place. That's all there is to it. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK point taken. However I did move it correctly on 2007-10-17T23:54:39 but its been subsequently fubared. --Gibnews (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, I have been there and done that - its messy because there have been more moves made and there are now four pages where a move is requested. --Gibnews (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a couple more which you missed Gibnews, so there are now six moves requested. --Gibmetal 77^talk 23:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

You're on WP:AN/I. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Revert warning

Hi Gibnews. This was a revert, which I had asked on the talk page that you not do. Please don't make any more reverts on this article while it is being discussed as it won't help advance the article, and it is likely to lead to a block for you. Thanks for your consideration, --John (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave the page as it is at present. However, the quote about the limitations of the ECHR is word for word from their website and is very important in the context of the claim that they 'overturned the verdict of the Gibraltar court'. If it was said that the HSBC regularly sent emails to their clients asking them to confirm their banking details, and on their website they specifically say they never do - it would be important to note that on an article about phishing.

I have not read your other comments until now. --Gibnews (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: List of Gibraltar flags

Hello. Sorry I didn't reply to your comment sooner, but I didn't see it for a while under all the signpost updates. Please don't try and patronise me. I don't need to be welcomed now, as I've been editing since June, particually by someone who is featured so much on the Administrators Notice Board. The discussion, as you've probably seen is closed and the article's name has been changed to List of flags of Gibraltar, which is the most neutral name and makes the most sense for people who don't live in GIBRALTAR. We're on the English speaking Wikipedia, not the People who live in Gibraltar Wikipedia. Throughout this whole fiasco there's been a lot of confusion and to be honest as for your claim that Gibraltan is a "nonsense word", I've found no proof whatsoever and I've found more proof that it does exist. Can you now please try and draw a line under this now? Thank you and have a nice day. --DWR^talk 23:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltarian etc

I think you need to calm down a little. Going to WP:ANI over a WP:RM which didn't end up in your favour is a bit over the top.[4]

You also need to get your facts right on a couple of issues:

1. The move was not unilateral - at least one other editor made the same move.[5]
2. I was not outnumbered in the WP:RM debates - see Template talk:Gibraltarian elections, which ended in a 2-2 stalemate.
3. I am not abusing my position as an administrator because I have not taken any administrative actions in this area - the RM discussions were closed by another admin.

Nevertheless, you are still welcome to take it to ANI if you don't believe the evidence above. I have no worries about defending myself. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I withdrew the complaint for the time as I noticed that someone I had asked to look at the issue left a message on your talk page. Whatever the reasons for your moves it does not make any sense and you seem unwilling to discuss the matter OR to look at what the things are actually called. If you were not an admin you would not have been able to move the Gibraltar Referendum to Gibraltarian referendum so its a missuse of your status. Can I suggest you read the article and look at the picture of the notices.

I really don't know why you are so insistent on this when its illogical - the sources all say GIBRALTAR not GIBRALTARIAN. --Gibnews (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the one article I moved can be moved by any editor (not just admins) as it doesn't involve moving over the top of a page that already exists. Therefore it wasn't a misuse of my status. (This isn't an invitation to move it back, as I only did it to make it match all the other titles - otherwise I would have moved it during the WP:RM discussion period.

As for being insistent, I'm a native English speaker (and a former English teacher), and I have only heard Gibraltarian (and occasionally Gibraltan) used as a demonym for the place. I'm aware that you disagree, but the English language does not conform to rules and we don't have a language academy like French or Hebrew to set what the "official" use of the language is, so you have to stop with the "it's wrong" argument. It isn't wrong - there is no wrong - people are entitled to use different words to describe the same thing. пﮟოьεԻ 57 14:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

As there was already a page entitled 'Gibraltarian referendum' you had to be an admin to do what you did. Yes you could call it a plastic duck, and that would be English - however the correct name for it is that which the entity who called it says, and the correct name for elections is reported in the Gibraltar media. I'm sure you would not refer to elections in Israel as 'Jewish elections' because they are for the state and not a specific group. Similarly Gibraltarians are a legally defined group. Non-Gibraltarians also vote in our elections and referenda and naming the events your way implies exclusion.

I too am English, and am not in need of lessons. However, I have been to every election and referendum in Gibraltar for the last thirty years in an official capacity and know exactly what they are called and the phrase 'Gibraltarian Election' has never ever been used, nor will it. To use it in Wikipedia makes a joke of it as a reference source. --Gibnews (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A poster from the campaign

Sorry, but you don't seem to know what you're talking about. As you can clearly see from the page history, I moved it over a redirect, which is possible for any editor to do. If I had used admin process, it would have meant deleting the original page which I moved it to, and, as the move shows, I didn't do that because the redirect was still present (i.e. had not been deleted). Please get your facts straight before continuing to make false accusations.

Your arguments above are really very poor - you are not comparing like with like in any conceivable manner. A more realistic comparison would be "Argentine elections" and "Argentinian elections" as they are both common demonyms for the country. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In your mind My arguments are poor However Wikipedia should show things as they are reported otherwise its a worthless collection of opinion. Remind me what the event is called on that poster? You are not prepared to either look, or listen to anyone else. Three Gibraltarian editors have tried to explain it to you nicely. We know because we vote in these events, you do not. The Government of Gibraltar states explicitly that the word to be used is Gibraltar. Gibraltar institutions are all named Gibraltar not Gibraltarian see Gibraltar national cricket team Gibraltar Football Association and I suggest you desist from renamimg those pages. --Gibnews (talk)

As an afterthought, perhaps I am explaining this badly and in a confrontational manner - let me put it differently - what would it take for you to change your mind and rename the articles Gibraltar instead of Gibraltarian thats a simple question. --Gibnews (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't understand after the first three times that I explained, but let's try again: I didn't use any admin processes. I moved the page over the redirect [6]. If I had deleted the article before I moved (i.e. used admin powers) the redirect wouldn't exist anymore. However, as it did (clearly shown in the diff), I clearly didn't use admin powers. Is it clear now? пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

When I tried to do the same thing to correct a moved page it refused to do it because there was an existing redirect page, so no I don't understand how you did that. In any event, that is part of the complaint, the other is that you are have imposed your POV and renamed a serious and important event something really stupid and refuse to listen or even look at what its actually called. Its evidence of a bad attitude. --Gibnews (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Your source doesn't lend any weight to the dispute because it's irrelevant. Articles are not named based on which people can vote in them. Rather, the format is "[Country demonym] [election type], year", e.g. German federal election, 2005. Gibraltarian is being used as a demonym for Gibraltar, not in anyway referring to the people who can vote in the elections/referendums.

Regarding the redirect, if you tried to move a page over a redirect that had any edits beyond its creation, it wouldn't work. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

How many times do you need it explained that the correct word is Gibraltar and not Gibraltarian which is ONLY used in relation to the people NOT events. take a look at Gibraltar Football Association. --Gibnews (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to explain again: if a redirect has never been edited (apart from its creation), you can move articles over the top of it. Find an article with a redirect and try it yourself (though remember to move it back). пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, but that redirect had been edited. However I'll do a test on something innocuous out of curiosity. It may be that as you are an admin some things work differently for you although you may not be aware of it. Systems are like that. As I said my aim is not to be confrontational, however the naming of that sequence of articles and that one in particular does look horribly wrong to me, and I would urge you to reconsider your position, because it is not about trying to prove someone right or wrong, its about what they are commonly called. --Gibnews (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It hadn't been edited; it had only been created by User:Gibmetal. I wasn't an admin until less than a year ago, so I am fully aware of how it works. Also, you seriously need to work on your approach to other editors, as you do come across as incredibly confrontational, to the point of being downright rude (I see below that another editor has not taken kindly to your way of communicating). For one thing, your attitude certainly won't help you win any debates. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I expect a mature attitude from others, and confront things and people that are wrong because ignoring problems is worse. In relation to DWR the nature of his complaints are pretty much self evident. If wikipedia is to have any value it needs to be accurate and not reflect politically correct opinions of poorly informed editors, or worse those with an agenda to rewrite history. That is my POV and those comments are specifically not directed at yourself or DWR.

But you have not answered my question, how can I convince you nicely to rename those articles ? --Gibnews (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Gibraltan

You seem to make it your mission to argue with and annoy as many people as possible on Wikipedia. I would point you towards Wikipedia:Civility, but you probably would just ignore it. On your point, Gibnews, you don't have to be politically correct to edit Wikipedia, but as far as most people (including me) are concerned you do have to be civil *points to above policy*. Manners don't cost anything. Thank you and good day to you too. --DWR^talk 17:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A reminder not to say 'hello and welcome' to people. --Gibnews (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting my comments. I fail to see how I have "harassed" you. If you had bothered to look at that link I posted here, instead of deleting it you would have seen that Wikipedia Policy says nothing about "infringing anyone's intellectual property". Quoted from it it says:

"Use of Wikipedia for promotion of a company or group is not permitted, and accounts that do this will be blocked. Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem..."

So instead of your kind advice to "take it up with the owners of that website in question" I wondered if you knew you shared the username. I'm afraid that saying "Its been in use since 2005 without any problem[s] and is generic" doesn't make much sense as its not generic (specific). It blantanley shares its name with a website posting news related to Gibraltar, which you always stress is where you live.[7] I've looked through your contributions and I've seen that its very likely that you know this website exists as you've edited articles which use it as a reference point.[8]

Quoting again from that page:

"Similarly, editing with a possible conflict of interest, such as editing an article about your employer, is not disallowed, but anyone wishing to do so is advised to first accumulate some editing experience in unrelated areas."

I can't see many of your recent edits which aren't related to Gibraltar in some way. Thank you Gibnews and have a nice day. --DWR^talk 19:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yawn I consider its rather petty complaining about peoples usernames. I live in Gibraltar and work in the media sector. Its best to create and edit articles relating to subjects I know about, an will not be creating pages about Manx mud wrestling. Should I need lectures on ethics etc from new users, I'll ask. --Gibnews (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

How on earth am I "lecturing" you. As you seem to spend most of your time arguing on talk pages with other users, I think you do really need a lecture not on ethics but on how to get on with people. Do you even know how old my account is? No need to bother to check, but if you had bothered you'd probably have found out that I'm not a new user. Also I bet you work in the 'media sector' as early revisions of your user page clearly promote the said website.[9] and you also tried to upload a logo of it onto wikipedia for use on your userpage which was later deleted.[10] Thank you for your mindless drivel by the way about Manx mud wrestling. It was nice that you tried to insult my intelligence over the internet by the way. I am very afraid. Wikipedia:Civility might offer you some pointers. As for your lovely comments about me above, I think they speak for themselves - I must add that I think it's absolutely charming you refer to me and the other user as having "politically correct opinions" and that everyone apart from you it seems is a "poorly informed editor" --DWR^talk 02:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yawn Give it a break, there must be more productive things to do than research my history on wikipedia and engage in rants. --Gibnews (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Still as charming and as polite as ever then Gibnews. Instead of actually replying to any of my points, you decided to use a big font, saying Yawn. Scary..--DWR^talk 11:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You may find this helpful. --Gibnews (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Voice of Gibraltar Group

Hey there.

Thanks for uploading Image:Gib yes.jpg, I've nominated the older version of it for deletion on Commons and notified you on your talk page there.

Also, thanks for uploading Image:Vogg 06.jpg. Would you be able to create an article on the VoGG? --Gibmetal 77^talk 21:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about that, however I think we need to sort out the referenda first. --Gibnews (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What are your plans in regards to the referenda? --Gibmetal 77^talk 23:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to get the name right. I have started a complaint on ANI about it as there has been no progress. This is intersting and spells out why terming it Gibraltarian is missleading. --Gibnews (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Gib page

It probably isn't worth feeding the two (or as I suspect one) user(s) who are now nitpicking beyond what is reasonable. Let them talk themselves out, they just want you to respond to they can go 'A ha! See how right we are and how wrong the British are!'. Narson (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree - however as there were allegations about nuclear weapons etc, its worthwhile noting that these are false, indeed apart from the SSBN's HM ships etc do not carry nuclear weapons. But I do take the point. --Gibnews (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, they used to, in the form of nuclear depth charges (Such as the WE.177A, IIRC) but even then, they were not widely deployed I don't think. Anyway, have a good evening. Narson (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Most certainly they used to currently none of them carry the WE-177C - according to HMG - perhaps they have misplaced them :) --Gibnews (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, fairly sure it is the same chap. Think a checkuser is worth it? Narson (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't think it will be taken, but I've filed one anyway Narson (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to comment on that. The previous edits on the Gib talk page made me suspicious but that last edit has almost convinced me it's the same user. --Gibmetal 77^talk 20:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong place so I've withdrawn it, but I'm not sure the evidence is strong enough for WP:SSP. Guess I should A some more GF. Narson (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Adolpho.jpg

Hi when did you take this pic?Genisock2 (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I think it would be 1998 - Its not very good, I could ask him for a better one as he lives 100m up the road and has aged well. Regrettably Sir Joshua is no longer available. --Gibnews (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Feetham

Hi there. How come you added Category:Gibraltarian people to this article even though it already has Category:Gibraltarian politicians, which is one of its sub-categories? I undid your edit but I see you added it once again, so I was just wondering why. Regards, --Gibmetal 77^talk 19:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think its an area that needs a bit of a sort out, preferably by yourself as you have done a lot of work on it.

The problem is that if you go to the category of Gibraltar people, it does not show, for instance Danny because he is in Gibraltar Politicians. Perhaps Gibraltar politicians should be a sub-category of Gibraltar people? If it is as you say, it does not show on the page properly as I had a job finding him.

I added it to his page, as I was including a photograph of him taken at the launch of the Police Authority. I also added a couple of former chief ministers from my archive. I see you have changed the names or was that the system because I clicked a link ??? I also need to get one of Major Bob. Took a picture of him at Morrisons recently but it really needs one of him from the period when he was active in politics. He is, however, keeping well. --Gibnews (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it subcategoris work in that way. They will show in the subcategory but not in the parent one and it is standard to only include it in the subcategory as the narrowest description of the article. I will remove the parent category at the moment and look into it for you.

As for the images, thanks a lot for uploading them! I uploaded them to commons and changed their titles to be a bit more precise and descriptive as this is the standard there (it helps when you are searching for the image). It's great that wer're slowly filling in the gaps with Gibraltar-related images, as I personally think they add a lot to articles. We just need Robert's picture to complete the CM gallery! --Gibmetal 77^talk 23:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

OK I wondered what was going on with the requests to delete the images, its resulted in a bit of a mess that needs tidying up. --Gibnews (talk)

Hi. Just to let you know that there was a discrepancy between the licences on en.wiki and Commons and so the bot was having a bit of trouble verifying them. I’ve altered some templates and it should be alright now. Regards, RedCoat10 (Chris.B) 12:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter Hain

Thank you for adding a reference to the Hain/Tatchell dispute. I don't agree with your interpretation so I have reverted it, and explained at some length on Talk:Peter Hain.

Many thanks Grblundell (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Curious

• 2006, Gibnews adds this to Wikipedia "Every year Gibraltar celebrates its National Day on 10th September to commemorate the 1967 referendum where with a massive majority the people of Gibraltar voted to reject annexation by Spain."
• 2008, Gibnews tries to use this encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/8713/Gibraltar.html as a reference: "Every year Gibraltar celebrates its National Day on 10th September to commemorate the 1967 referendum where with a massive majority the people of Gibraltar voted to reject annexation by Spain."

Something about those two sentences strikes me as similar, not sure what though? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Its a commonly used form of words used to describe Gibraltar National Day.

Andrew Rosindell must be in on the Conspiracy as he used the same words in an early day motion in the UK parliament:

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=31229&SESSION=875

That this House celebrates with the people of Gibraltar as they prepare for their National Day on 10th September, which commemorates the 1967 referendum in which a massive majority of the people of Gibraltar voted to reject annexation by Spain

Similarly Guy Fawkes Night is an annual celebration on the evening of the 5th of November. It celebrates the foiling of the Gunpowder Plot. Lots of references to that using those words too. The only curious thing is why you wish to dispute the obvious and assert I'm responsible for all the mentions of Annexation. All 51,000 of them. --Gibnews (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You are missing my point. Let me put your 2006 edit (1) and that stateuniversity's sentence (2) side by side:

• (1) Every year Gibraltar celebrates its National Day on 10th September to commemorate the 1967 referendum where with a massive majority the people of Gibraltar voted to reject annexation by Spain.
• (2) Every year Gibraltar celebrates its National Day on 10th September to commemorate the 1967 referendum where with a massive majority the people of Gibraltar voted to reject annexation by Spain.

Are they, or are they not, exactly the same wording, inclusive of the grammatical error "where with"? Are you suggesting that this is a total coincidence, as is the fact that the rest of the article is virtually word-for-word what Wikipedia's article was in 2006? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source

Hi there. Let's not get into an edit war over this. Until the dispute over the term has been resolved, there should be no reference to it in the text. Also, the general opinion is not that it is a reliable source. [11] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no support for your assertion it is unreliable - everyone else agrees its OK so you really should refrain from editing the sentence whilst its under discussion, in the same way I have left your dispute tag intact. Deleting references just because you not like what they say is bad. --Gibnews (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There is support that it is unreliable. Did you read this page [12]? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, which it seems you have not. --Gibnews (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we both know that I have. Anyway, we should keep these two issues separate. First, let us sort out the term "annexation". Then, whichever way it goes, we will find a reference for that wording that everyone is happy with. That would be fair for all, would it not? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not a matter of 'making you happy', its a matter of describing things correctly and in accordance with wikipedia principles. If these two seperate issues are resolved no doubt there are more nits to be picked. --Gibnews (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Come on, let's try to be reasonable with each other. We disagree over something, we both believe we are right, and we need to find a way forwards. Mediation was proposed. I have not tried this before, but I think this is a great idea. Why don't we try it? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, in case you missed it, someone proposed mediation as a way forward on this on the Gib talk page. I think this is a good idea: a fresh, neutral party who has not been involved in any of the prior discussions can only help us reach a consensus. How about you? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

I have listed the dispute over the Gibraltar article here [13] for mediation. You are invited to participate. Justin talk 20:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Elections in Gibraltar

Hello, I have opened an RM at Talk:Gibraltarian general election, 2007#Requested Move to move the three articles on elections in Gibraltar. I thought you might be interested as you were involved in the previous RM on referendums. Thanks, Pfainuk talk 16:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, you are doing good work, you will have to come and have a beer in a Gibraltar bar one day. --Gibnews (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nouns and Adjectives

The example may be a poor one, I admit, but it does not detract from the fact that "Gibraltarian" can be both a noun (a Gibraltarian, ie an individual from Gibraltar) and an adjective (of or relating to Gibraltar). Its use in both forms can be found in one article here (adj: "Gibraltarian rights", "Gibraltarian attitudes", "Gibraltarian driving licence"; noun: "a Gibraltarian was arrested"). It is not grammatically incorrect to refer to a "Gibraltarian general election" because the noun "election" is modified by the adjectives "general" and "Gibraltarian". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It depends on whether you are talking about the people or the territory - an example I gave previously was the term 'a Gibraltar lawyer' as I know one who is Irish and lives in Spain. He is not a 'Gibraltarian Lawyer' but a lawyer who practises in the jurisdiction of Gibraltar.

Due to a lack of uniform style in newspaper reports, foreign media may not always use the terms in the manner they are used in the territory - but for that the telephone book is a good guide and although there are pages of 'Gibraltar xxxx's' there is not one 'Gibraltarian' mentioned as such.

Anyway I'm glad we can at least agree on something. --Gibnews (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar National Day!

HAPPY NATIONAL DAY!--Gibmetal 77^talk 14:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - it went well. Perhaps we need to describe the political rally on Wikipedia now it happened. --Gibnews (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking it might be the right time to create a seperate article for GND. Your thoughts? --Gibmetal 77^talk 00:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, after all there is one for the 4th July. --Gibnews (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gbc smp.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gbc smp.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you threating me?

As I told you, it was a mistake. And you know it. Therefore, your warnings are pointless. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a false assumption to claim to 'know what I know' you do not. I have politely asked you not to edit my user page and not to edit my comments in discussion pages. If you think you are going to provoke a dispute, please calm down and back off. I am being courteous and expect that to be reciprocated. Warnings are only pointless when people disregard them.

For the avoidance of doubt, as you have raised the issue of my involvement with Gibnews.net be advised that I have now reached the happy age of retirement and am NO LONGER EMPLOYED by the company that owns it, and can now devote all day and night to editing Wikipedia.

To further emphasise the difference, I have signed a Wikipedia deed poll and will emerge refreshed under a new user name when the powers that be approve it. --Gibnews (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: My note at Ecemaml's talk page

As a bit of friendly advice, I think it'd be recommended if you avoided everyone who was related to any Gibraltar articles. I can understand that sometimes discussions and editing can get quite heated, but some of the arguments just aren't worth getting annoyed about: "X reverted me 4 times and I'm gonna report X!" - I think it's best if everyone keeps away from those articles and ventures off into different territory. Wikipedia is huge. Go edit something else for a few days, calm down and relax :-) Perhaps remove all Gibraltar related articles from your watchlist, come back in a few days and see if you have a different perspective. I'm assuming all related parties to be adults, what's the point in acting like children? :-) - If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me via my talk page or e-mail [if it's private]. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)