Talk:Gibnews/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Falklands/Malvinas again

Sorry to bother you with this, but you show to have an open mind I will like to invite you to Talk:Argentine_Navy --Jor70 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

racist comment?

one cannot be racist against english,t hey are not a 'race' (unsigned) host86-143-172-117.range86-143.btcentralplus.com

try reading racism --Gibnews 14:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Date format

Hey, I actually wasn't changing the dates manually, AWB does it automatically. I was fixing typos with it so it also fixed the date. This is done according to WP:DATE#Incorrect date formats. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 03:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And again

Hi. See [1], boy there are a lot of pro Malvinas Argentinians on the Spanish version, SqueakBox 18:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there are, The pages on Gibraltar are also different and some would like to insert a Spanish flag where it is not politically correct. Doing it for real it carries a jail sentence. --Gibnews 22:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


Jah

http://jahtruth.net/gibralta.htm

I cruised several of his pages, but reading schizophrenic symptomatology gets old after a while. --Deaconse 04:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

In fairness I believe his is not a native having arrived on a yacht, and is not found on the streets selling books and pamphlets proclaiming the word. Also he is not advocating union with spain, so can't be totally mad. --Gibnews 10:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Spain banner

Gibnews - The WikiProject Spain banner does not imply "ownership" (and certainly not a territorial claim!). It simply signals that this is an article that members of this project are interested in contributing to and helping maintain. At the same time, we are sensitive to perceptions relating to "over-tagging" and if you could give me links to the specific article(s) that you're concerned about, I'll take a look at them; if necessary, I'll see if the Project is interested in helping contribute/maintain those article(s). I look forward to hearing from you. EspanaViva 22:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion is an interesting one ... - actually, there's a "small" version of the template, let me see if that doesn't have the flag. I'll ask around about other options as well. EspanaViva 02:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

On Disputed status of Gibraltar, please don't substitute the template. Whether the Spanish Wikiproject template uses a flag or not, I don't care — I'm about a neutral you can get in this Gibraltar-Spain thing — but standardized templates shouldn't be substituted, as they may change with the rest of the Wikproject. My advice would be to see if Wikiproject Spain has, or would be willing to make, a different (small, for example) version of the template without the flag. Honestly, though, I don't see why it's such a big deal — it's the talk page, and if a future Wikiproject Gibraltar sticks their flag on Disputed status of Gibraltar's talk page, that's fine by me. — Rebelguys2 talk 05:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar is not Spain, the Spanish flag is a national symbol that is inappropriate in relation to Gibraltar, and liable to cause offence. Please respect the sensitivities of others. --Gibnews 10:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Your comments serve as evidence that you are missing the point. This is a project coordination issue, not the heated political issue you are making this out to be. — Rebelguys2 talk 17:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Its a heated enough issue that if you waved one around in the street you would be arrested, IF you were lucky. --Gibnews 22:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
And if you were a Sunni in a Shi'ite area of Baghdad, you'd likely end up dead. But Wikipedia isn't Gibraltar or Baghdad, so what's the point of importing local political animosities? We're simply trying to build a better encyclopedia here. Local standards of political correctness aren't relevant to that (after all, we have a detailed article on the Tiananmen Square massacre, which some think is why the Chinese government has blocked access to Wikipedia.) We need the participation of a wide range of people, even (especially!) on controversial issues. If Serbs and Croats can work cooperatively on articles on the former Yugoslavia, I'm sure Gibraltarians and Spaniards can do the same for Gibraltar articles. -- ChrisO 09:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Spaniards and Gibraltarians did achieve an acceptable compromise, but you have upset that. What we have now is a mess. --Gibnews 10:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Gibraltar created

Now open for business! Please sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar.

There's a fair amount of work to do in tagging the Talk page of all Gibraltar-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gibraltar}} tag, but you're probably a better position than me to do it, since you know the Gibraltar articles better. In case you're wondering, I've already added the tag to Talk:Spain... -- ChrisO 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah like we need more edit wars. Not amused. Very silly. --Gibnews 20:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Stalking you

Can you please provide evidence of stalking or else remove the accusation, if you cant/dont I will report it as a breach of WP:NPA.regards--Vintagekits 13:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Your threat is noted. --Gibnews 15:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide evidence of your claim?--Vintagekits 15:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Your threat is noted. --Gibnews 16:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
What I am asking you is have you got proof to back up your accusation?--Vintagekits 16:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Your behaviour here for a start.
I would further refer you to your communication of 19 Dec 2006 19:30:48 which seems remarkably similar to the advice given in Arkell v. pressdram, however in this case you may wish to follow that course of action yourself. --Gibnews 17:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Gibraltar

Hey Gibnews, why arent u part of wikiproject Gibraltar?--Burgas00 15:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought that had been made clear on the project page;

This 'project' was never discussed and was simply created as a knee jerk reaction to wikiproject Spain. Now although there is a lot of merit in the latter, all that needs doing in relation to Gibraltar is to sort out the categories, which someone started doing and to add those correctly to the articles to link them together. The 'project' lacks any substance and because I support Gibraltar does not mean supporting nonsense for the sake of it.

I see including templates, particularly with flags, as spamming. Gibraltar has ties with Portugal, Morocco, Italy, the UK, Malta, etc by the time they were all there there would be little else to see.

This garbage is rather like the tribbles on Startrek, one is cute but they multiply.

I asked nicely for it to be reconsidered, but the editor who started it does not want to discuss anything.

There is also the issue that we have been able to achive some sort of peace in the Gibraltar -v- Spain war and it would be nice to get something positive done - flag waving is likely to bugger that up.

--Gibnews 15:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You might at least find this to be of some use. -- ChrisO 18:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop sulking and join the Gibraltar project. There is not much point having one without you participating!--Burgas00 12:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you read the comments above ? --Gibnews 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see what you mean... I hadnt actually:-)--Burgas00 20:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok I added my opinion to the RfC. So I guess you also get alot of porn on your TVs in Gibraltar? :D Those local tv stations are so funny.--Burgas00 16:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think the local TV stations are amusing and a good idea for communities, but there was one which showed looped hard porn all day. As it was on the same frequency as GBC, it causes inteference and when their transmitter went off the air due to a power failure, the communal system relayed the porn channel automatically and we got complaints. GBC does not run anything with nudity and its was only last year someone said 'fuck' on a live programme, once.

However once they go digital, the problem of intereference will stop. --Gibnews 00:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy

Re.Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Astrotrain#Response_to_One_Night_In_Hackney, it seems in your comment you have misrepresented, no doubt unwittingly, One Night In Hackney's statement by omitting the wikilink. Please be careful over such volatile matters. Tyrenius 02:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how its missrepresented. The wording is a direct quote seems unambiguous and is on the same page. I make no comment apart from quoting a source which refutes his claim totally. --Gibnews 11:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Britsh Flag

Can you explain this revertion and why you called this "vandalism". regards--Vintagekits 13:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe its self-evident that removing valid referenced content because of a political agenda is vandalism. But I really don't think I need to explain everything I do on Wikipedia to you, so please desist from pestering me.--Gibnews 19:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Please keep a watch on this article- referenced material is still being removed. Thanks Astrotrain 13:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The valid source if you care to check it is to a commerial site that sells flags, the same source also states the flag is not Offical. As for a political agenda, the only people pushing one is those that insist that the Ulster Banner is used in all article refering to Northern Ireland.--padraig3uk 15:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Malvinas

I answered you Falklands post on my talk page :) --Jor70 03:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, There was not air links to the islands until 1971, when Argentine Air force (LADE) begin anphibious flights between comodoro rivadavia and stanley with grumman hu-16 albratros [2] . After FAA request, UK and AR reach agreement and FAA construct first runway. Flight begin with fokker f27 and continues with fokker f28 jets twice a week until 1982 as the sole air link of the island [3] YPF, the national oil and gas company, was in charge to suply the islands too —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jor70 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Any interesting data about the San Luis ? Jor70 15:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing usable on Wikipedia, however its something that merits research, as I am told some documents have been released on the war in the UK. --Gibnews 21:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

PC

[4] - Kittybrewster 22:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please dont canvas.--Vintagekits 22:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Please cease and desist from telling me what and what not to do. You are not an administrator here - should I require your advice in future, I'll ask for it.
AND I have no idea what you are referring to. --Gibnews 22:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Gibnews, please remember WP:CIVIL. I was talking to Kitty. Please see his edit history for further information. regards--Vintagekits 22:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

IF you wish to talk to other people, then please do so on THEIR pages, the purpose of this page is to discuss things I might be doing on Wikipedia not for people to threaten me or others. --Gibnews 00:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

try being a bit civil! No one was threatened and someonelse reported him and he has been warned. If you cant be civil don't edit at all.--Vintagekits 00:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Can I remind you this is not a bulletin board for your private discussions, and threats. It would be appreciated if you took it off your watch list and ceased harassing me. --Gibnews
I am hardly harassing you just asking you to kepe a civil tone - which is a wiki policy. There has been a lot of heated debate over the past month and many editors have been either blocked, warned or reported - including you and I, I am trying to calm the waters here and keeping a civil tone when replying to each other would be a good start. Consider this an olive branch. Kind regards.--Vintagekits 10:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Its my opinion you are harassing me. You need to reconsider your anti-British campaign on Wikipedia. You may have been blocked recently for this - I have not. This discussion is OVER. --Gibnews 12:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

geohack

Hi, IMHO the script's fine; it looks like Template:Geolinks-cityscale is broken for producing such a strange URL. The geohack link in the sidebox of Gibraltar, for example, works just fine. --Magnus Manske 12:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO

Strikingly similar case of suspected admin abuse here at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Use of admin tools in content dispute, SqueakBox 15:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Gibnews, just wanted to let you know i've used you as a sort of example of something i learned/realised recently, in a blog i occasionally publish. Feel free to check it out; i'm certainly not trying to offend.... Thanks, EW.

British vs UK Overseas Territory

Hello. Have you read the British Overseas Territories Act 2002? Section 1 Paragraph 1: "As the territories mentioned in Schedule 6 to the British Nationality Act 1981 (c. 61) are now known as "British overseas territories" The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 10:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"please discuss before making incorrect changes"? You didn't even reply to my question above before reverting. The fact of the matter is that the Act of Parliament states that these are British Overseas Territories. Granted they are sometimes referred to as "UK" Overseas Territories, but that is not their legal name. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 19:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
One more thing - your original reversion claimed that "this is the correct designation under British law" - again, that is not true, according to the Act, which you can read for yourself. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 19:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Take it up the the FCO - thats what they call Gibraltar, thats we say it is in Gibraltar and thats what the CIA factbook (correct in places) says. --Gibnews 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Please read this page on the FCO website: [5]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Gibnews, could you possibly take a look at the talk page? I'd appreciate your input. -- ChrisO 23:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


I can't respond at the moment, and need to take an anti-nausia pill because of that brightly coloured header when visiting the page :) The correct thing to do would have been to have left the heading alone until a definitive answer was obtained from the FCO - there are very good reasons for the name change, which I have somewhere in a file but can't find. However as mentioned elsewhere whatever else is on their site, their country profile is correct.

--Gibnews 08:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for filing a 3RR on me, although I feel I should point out that it was you who broke 3RR rules by making 4RR. I have also filed a report on you. However, getting ourselves mutually blocked isn't going to help either of us, so I am offering you the opportunity of a "ceasefire": if you agree, we can both delist ourselves and continue to discuss this issue maturely on the Gib talk page. Looking forward to hearing your response. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if you saw my offer, but if you hadn't it seems that the admins got there before we could both put our guns away. Please do contribute to the Gib talk page with your views once your block expires and let's resolve this amicably. (BTW - I can understand your dislike of things Spanish, but why on earth do you have a preference for "UK overseas territory" vs "British overseas territory"? I find it a bit bizarre. Would you propose renaming the British overseas territory article too?) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR block

Hi. You have been blocked from editinf for 24 hours due to a 3RR violation. Please be more careful in the future. Many thanks in advance. El_C 00:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Your selective use/rubbishing of the CIA factbook when it suits/doesn't suit your argument

On Talk:Falkland Islands, you wrote:

"CIA 3/10 for accuracy. Wikipedia is by contrast correct. Their factbook contains nonsense."

On your own talk page above, you wrote:

"Take it up the the FCO - thats what they call Gibraltar, thats we say it is in Gibraltar and thats what the CIA factbook (correct in places) says."

So you rubbish the CIA factbook when it doesn't agree with you, and you use it as evidence when it does agree? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 02:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've spent time with the CIA correcting errors in their factbook, which is one reason its mostly correct, however in relation to the recent Cordoba agreement their summary of it is quite wrong. No doubt at the next revision they will correct that, as they did with their reference to a railway in Gibraltar. The BBC make factual errors some of which they correct. However the FCO take a lot of care on their country profiles and they are up-to-date and 100% correct although other parts of their website may be wrong, or express a historical view. The 2002 act was correct in 2002, the correct designation for Gibraltar in 2007 is a UK overseas territory --Gibnews 08:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Where is your evidence for this claim? There has been no change in the law, no new Act of Parliament replacing the 2002 one. The FCO website itself uses both versions (read the FCO Gibraltar Travel Profile Page: "Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory."), so you cannot use it to argue for or against either version, and you cannot claim that any reference to "British Overseas Territory" on the FCO website (or indeed any other website) is incorrect because you haven't pointed out the "inaccuracy" to them yet. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 10:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
As I have said repeatedly, the Country profile is definitive, the travel advice focus's on travel advice. The CIA make mistakes, but they do listen and correct their errors. Their current synopsis of the Cordoba agreement is totally wrong, otherwise they are correct. I know the difference. --Gibnews 08:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes I know. You say a lot of things repeatedly. None of them are independently verifiable though. If you want to believe that one page of the FCO's website, a website that is internally inconsistent, takes precedence over an Act of Parliament, please go ahead and believe that. You are entitled to believe what you will, but when you contribute to WP, remember that what you contribute must be verifiable. I've fed you enough now, get back to me when you uncover something objectively verifiable. Good day. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 11:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, I won't be 'getting back to you' and resent the abusive and condecending tone - I will, however, in due course correct the article. If you have any further advice, please don't waste time and space adding it here.--Gibnews 14:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see my comments on the Gibraltar talk page - I've received some advice from the FCO on this question. -- ChrisO 19:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll get a formal statement from them after Easter. HMG do not need to change the law, its done with an order in council, like the new constitution has been pushed through without an act of parliament. --Gibnews 00:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Google Earth

Arguments aside, Gibnews, have you seen the 3d version of Google Earth? I was a bit dissapointed to find that they seriously screwed up the "Rock". Its too small and steep I guess. --Burgas00 14:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No, have not. On the 2d version I could identify my 2m satellite dish easily. I found a really good high arial photo of the rock from above Algeciras which was spectacular. Perhaps one day I can arrange a flight with the RAF on a clear day and get some good original photos, attempts through a window on British Airways yesterday produced rubbish. --Gibnews 14:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: take a look at this http://www.gibnet.com/airport/iberia.htm

Jesus Christ! What do they do when there are tempests? Doesnt the airstrip get flooded? Anyways have a look at the 3D version. Its definitely worth it.
You were right about the companies though. There are currently less that 8500 exempt companies, although I assume the number has fallen drastically with the phasing out of the exempt regime. The figure of 20,000 is probably just outdated. http://www.panorama.gi/archive/050131/updates.htm --Burgas00 15:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice photo of the airport approach! I bet landing at it is fun. :-) It reminds me a bit of the old Kai Tak Airport in Hong Kong - that had a similar configuration and a reputation for "interesting" landings... (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih-PMskjX0I& and be very glad the airport's now closed!). -- ChrisO 07:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The camera lens exagerates the shortness of the runway, AERAD says its 6000m - too small for jumbos ! Thankfully it does not flood, however the crosswinds can be very tricky at some times of the year. Since the Cordoba agreement aircraft can more easily divert to malaga from where passengers can be easily bussed to Gib. When the frontier was closed we had to divert to Tangier, in some cases staying overnight.
The crew are allowed three attempts, and if they fail to make it, its up and away and change because its assessed they have lost the plot. Strangely the approach from the west which involved a sharp right hand turn and a quick drop is always better as the winds on the straight approach from the east whack the aircraft at the last and vital moment.
some of the military aircraft, eg phantoms needed arrestor wires to get down.

--Gibnews 08:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Personal Attack"

I'm not bitter, I'm just frustrated with you. You disagree with everyone that wants to make an alteration to the article, and you stubbornly cling onto your own view even when evidence is put forward to the contrary, refusing to even budge one inch. You are incapable of just saying "OK, I thought it was so, but I realise now that I'm wrong, let's move on". (Is that simply immaturity?) It wouldn't be such a problem if you didn't hold the (mistaken) beliefs that you own this article, and that because you are from Gibraltar, you are better qualified to edit it than those who are not. I'm sure you do have areas of expertise, but right now I see you as having zero credibility, because your approach to every discussion is to decide what you believe, and then make observations fit that view, instead of doing the observations, and then deciding (or changing) what you believe. For that reason, I'm going to be watching you and your contributions very carefully. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone has an opinion , but unlike opinions.facts can be established. In the meantime, please refrain from personal attacks and threats of stalking as both are against the rules, and as you have pointed out, feeding trolls is not a good idea.
And its incorrect to say I disagree with everyone --Gibnews 07:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing stalking about being a 'recent changes patroller'. Gibraltar is in my watchlist. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 10:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Still sounds like a personal attack to me, However if you read my contributions you might learn something useful. The reverse is not true and I do not wish to discuss this further. --Gibnews 18:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
How rude and arrogant of you. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Likewise. --Gibnews 09:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar in Google Earth shock

This might amuse you (or possibly not!)... ;-) - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/18/gibraltar_outrage/ -- ChrisO 18:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah someone emailed me this afternoon, as comments say its the wrong one. --Gibnews 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Trolling

To quote from WP:TROLL

  • "trolls will generally not seek consensus but will instead insist on a position without any regard for compromise."
  • "The defining characteristic of a troll in this case is not the content of the edit, but the behavior in discussing the edit, and the refusal to consider evidence and citations or to accept consensus or compromise."

Sound familiar? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 20:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to cease and desist from abusive postings here. --Gibnews 11:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not abuse. I am trying to get you to reflect on your attitude here at Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 12:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
This is my user page DO NOT POST HERE EVER AGAIN --Gibnews 15:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You aren't very civil are you? Anyway, this is your talk page, not your user page. Talk pages are for people to post comments on. You can't ban someone from posting on your talk page. Noone is stopping you deleting my posts though. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 20:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Single words that cause problems

Please read my comments at Talk:Falkland Islands. I don't know what interactions you have had elsewhere with Vintagekits, but popping up with the word 'racism' was not a good thing. Any honest reaction to that would be hard to hold against them. I would hope you could simply say you regret those words, and that what matters on that talk page is whether Vintagekits can bring any new refs to the table. Apologizing, and then saying "the purpose of this talk page" is for things pertinent to the topic would be the correct order here.

I've tried to outline to Vintagekits how long-standing the issue is, and that review of prior discussion/archives, and the refs found previously, is necessary to know which 'new' refs they have found, or need to find. I've pointed out that at least one of their cited refs, you had brought up before. If the first thing you all had said was that (find something new), rather than 'lol', well, you would not have come off looking as bad as the end of that page looks right now.

It is quite right to ask someone proposing a change to do some work, find refs, outline new arguments. Ask for that, don't ask for them to go ...
Shenme 11:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Regretably Vintagekits spends his time trying to remove articles about British people and promoting the view that the IRA and the terrorist entities spawned by them are legitimate military organisations. He has been rather rude to me in other places has been selectivly editing my comments on that page. His only interest in the topic is to attack something British. --Gibnews 20:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Map of Gib

Did you watch the news, David Parody was taking about his website and the interactive map of Gibraltar. I was reading, and the map has an accompanying 'WikiMedia' thing. If you haven't done so already, have a look at it, it's basically a 'mini' wikipedia with articles only about Gib. Chris Buttigieg 19:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at it when he added the links to the Gibraltar wikipedia page here - someone promptly took them out as 'trivia' which his site is certainly not. A very credible effort and a long term project of great value. --Gibnews 16:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your invitation Gibnews. Not certain about moving there yet. May spend some time there this summer though.--Burgas00 23:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

When you do, get in contact and I'll buy you lunch, if you coming to work for the Cervantes Institute, bring plenty 0f flags :) --Gibnews 09:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Full Integration and National Anthem

Shouldn't the national anthem be God Save the Queen like other UK overseas territory? I can understand having a local anthem like say Scotland does(?), but wouldnt the national anthem be that of the UK?

Also, isn't it about time Gibraltar was integrated fully into the United Kingdom? The same way France does with its possesions. That would end Gibraltar's colonial status and to me (and i'm sure many others) it is the most logical long term solution don't you agree? YourPTR! 14:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The IWBM (Integration with Britain Movement) would agree with you, however the new constitution effectivly ends Gibraltar's colonial status. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. You could try asking the question on the newsgroup alt.gibraltar or on the discussion group at www.panorama.gi --Gibnews 19:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fly Gibraltar

I noticed that you added a proposed deletion template to the Fly Gibraltar article. According to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion policy, articles which have been nominated for proposed deletion before and had the template removed by another editor cannot be renominated for proposed deletion. After checking the history for the article (source) I noticed that the article had been nominated for proposed deletion before, so I have removed the proposed deletion template from the Fly Gibraltar article as required by proposed deletion policy. You will need to nominate the article through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you believe the article does need deleting. Details on how to nominate an article for deletion are on that page.

After reading through the article though, a project which has been cancelled does not automatically qualify an article for deletion. Deletion of an article must comply with Wikipedia:Deletion policy, before you decide to nominate the article for deletion. I have added a dispute tag to the article in the meantime.

Regards. --tgheretford (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fly Gibraltar

I see you have repeatedly removed my requests for deletion on this article rather than engaging in any defence of the mythical airline.

Their aircraft are a product of Adobe and the publicity would power Richard Bransons balloon. If they ever fly, I'll be the first to include it, but pigs stand a better chance.

Let it go. --Gibnews 19:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like you even bothered to find out why I removed them. Please learn how speedy deletion and PROD requests work at WP:CSD and WP:PROD, respectively. — Rebelguys2 talk 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


I find it badly explained and inscrutable, I assumed that inserting a template would initiate the process, as it did with another article, successfully binned; but perhaps instead of critisisig me for being ignorant, and simply removing my efforts, you could show me how its done for future reference. The article does nothing for the credibility of Gibraltar or wikipedia. --Gibnews 23:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I told you that PROD templates should never be re-added if they are removed. Additionally, the PROD template itself says that, "[i]f this template is removed, it should not be replaced." I also told you where to go next — to take it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where instructions are clearly laid out under the heading, 'How to list pages for deletion.' I don't know what happened on your end — laziness, stubbornness, or you just not getting the message after seeing it displayed in one form or another a minimum of four times — but it wasn't because of an inscrutable explanation.
But, OK, it was all my fault. You win. Better? — Rebelguys2 talk 00:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I would say "thanks for the help" had there been any. --Gibnews 08:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal Revert on Gibraltar

I was just lucky to stumble over it as it happened. That said, it was refreshing to see a relatively literate and historically-minded vandal, in contrast to the usual POOOOP!!!!!! and such that seems to infest WP when the schools aren't minding the computers. Rmasbury 01:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar in the es WP

Hey Gibnews, let me know what it is you wanted to include in the es Gibraltar article so that I can translate it for you as I finally have some time to spend on it. Gibmetal 77talk 14:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hola again, take a look at my edits to the article. I basically took them from the article on this WP. Let me know what you think. Gibmetal 77talk 23:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me, concise and accurate. Is that the correct term in Spanish for a telephone switch ? I was not sure. Neither was Cervantes :) Anyway keep up the good work, and expect stiff resistance from those with embedded opinions. --Gibnews 07:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I knew it wasn't the correct term but I used that word while I was finding the correct one. I've now changed it to conmutador which seems to be the correct term to use. Yeah hopefully they can tell that I don't use POV in my edits and also that I'm NOT User:Gibraltarian lol. One other thing... Don't you think the heading Comunicaciones should read Transporte and use the first term for telephone etc? Gibmetal 77talk 11:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a telecommunications section, the term communications can be used to define things like shipping, trains, planes.
The term 'exchange' really goes back to the days of the ladies with plugs and wires, since the invention of the mad undertaker and subsequent things my favourite term in English is switch. But its an area of mystery en espanol. --Gibnews 15:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just seen the change of the image to a NPOV. A lot better :) Gibmetal 77talk 00:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltarian

Can you believe that they think I might be user:Gibraltarian over at the Spanish wikipedia simply because of something about the same IP range. It even says on my user page to take into account that I am not Gibraltarian. I noticed the commment on user:Ecemaml's talk page after he had reverted one of my edits (like usual) and was mentioning something about vandalism. They haven't said anything to me personally, but I am sure they are watching me with eagle-eyes. Any little thing I do is reverted; for instance, I added the Charles Dickens template to the article and translated the details from this wikipedia. The caption was Charles Dickens is acclaimed as one of the greatest novelists in history - but they removed it as POV. tut-tut. Chris Buttigiegtalk 17:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely there is but one great novelist :)
Yes they are a bit fierce on the .es wikipedia, trashed my user page and locked me out claiming I was user:Gibraltarian - took some effort to get back but they now accept that I am NOT. Not particularly welcome though and adding a picture of Stanley on the .fk page was removed by Ecemam1 on the grounds that 'Wikipedia was not a repository for photos' clearly not those which dispel irrational beliefs in place names.
Big argument on the Airport where he insist that the isthmus is controlled by Britain, not the GoG because that does not exist in a colony, yada yada plonk. user:gibraltarian said he felt outnumbered. Just take it calmly and persist and remember the national sport is bullfighting, don't play the bull, he loses the game. --Gibnews 21:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, bullfighting techniques at its best can also bee seen as they try to regain their lost treasure - which of course is undoubtedly theirs. Anyhow, I'll keep an eye open for any changes to the Gib pages. Chris Buttigiegtalk 13:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
See you at the opening of the institute in Gib :) --Gibnews 16:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

How to nominate an article for deletion

Re: your request on my talkpage

This is how an article is nominated for deletion.

  1. Add {{subst:afd1}} to the top of the aricle page. Add something along the lines of "nominating for deletion" in the edit summary and save.
  2. Within the tag at the top of the page will be a redlink. Open this redlink in a new window.
  3. Add {{subst:afd2|pg=|cat=|text=}} ~~~~ to the top of the blank page, fill in the fields and save.
    • Pg field is the name of the page you are nominating.
    • Cat field is the topic category. Look at the list at the top of Category:AfD debates and insert the letter for the most appropriate category.
    • Text field is where you state your reasons for deletion. Include evidence to support the facts you claim, such as websites or news articles.
  4. Return to the first article. At the bottom of the tag, in the right hand corner, will be a link to "LOG" Open this.
  5. Copy {{subst:afd3|pg=}} to the top of the newly opened page and save. Again, pg is the name of the article in question.

Any dramas, drop me another line. -- saberwyn 09:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fly Gibraltar AfD

Hey, just to let you know I've already voted for the article to be deleted. Seems pretty pointless to have an article for this now. Gibmetal 77talk 01:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

llanito

Hey sorry about my vandalism last week. I am quite dissapointed no one found it funny. Anyways here is the link: http://www.lalinea.ws/foro/showthread.php?t=122 Was talking about it with Chris and he confirms that llanito is spoken in La Linea. Looks like I may put off my move to Gib, perhaps next year. Staying in the UK for the moment. --Burgas00 16:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Lunch is still on whenever you come here. I went to the UK for Easter and the weather was excellent but the queues at Gatwick terrible. I've posted a comment at length on the talk page, but although there may be those with a grasp of llanito in La Linea - theres a number of the less well off Gibraltarians who live there, plus a lot of people from the call centers BUT the locals I socialise and worked with there speak very good spanish and suggesting their mother tougue was wandering, would invite trouble. --Gibnews 18:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Flag icons

Hi. I was interested in this edit you made, which restored two redundant flag icons which were causing an edit war, as well as a formatting error. I'm going to assume it was an honest mistake on your part, and I invite you to restore my changes. Best wishes, --John 14:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I did it myself, along with a much-needed copyedit of the article. See what you think. --John 15:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning NPA

If you leave another post like this,[6] you'll be blocked. It is totally unacceptable. See WP:NPA:

There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable: Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, or other epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor.

Tyrenius 03:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I'm surprised you have not blocked Vintagekits for comments like:
Again that is your POV, you should try and open your eyes a little wider what happens on that "Rock" which I hope Spain get back soon, and I support the idea that the British give all lands that the British thieved back - Hong Kong and must of Ireland has been returned, Las Malvinas, The Rock and The Occupied 6 Countries of the North East of Ireland are yet to come. Vintagekits 12:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Flavius&diff=prev&oldid=93137000
Other offensive comments include
Those involved with the 1916 Easter Rising in Dublin were considered terrorist and criminals by the British Government also - they went on to form the first Irish government! Give the Rock back to Spain ye cuckoos! Vintagekits 12:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Trying to whitewash terrorist attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euston_railway_station&diff=prev&oldid=111457506
No doubt if you asked him he would agree that he has is anti-british and promotes Irish repubicanism. Thats not an 'epiphet' and my comment complains that Wikipedia simply puts up with it. You can see that on the page about Mairead Farrell I have tried to be fair.

--Gibnews 21:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and came to you page to issue a similar notice. I understand comments like those you made are not uncommon between certain editors in that discussion. That may be so but, as Tyrenius states, hey are not acceptable. Please note that Vintagekits now has a civility mentor who is guiding him on how to work with other editors in a more congenial manner. I suggest you take his lead and refrain from impolite speculation on the motivations of other editors in future, as your interaction with him will be followed closely by third parties. Thanks. Rockpocket 05:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
He certainly needs a civility mentor, however I stand by my comments that he has an anti-british POV and a bad attitude. That is not an attack, its a statement of fact based on his behaviour and edits. --Gibnews 21:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The point is, you were speculating on his "objectives" rather than his edits. That is entirely unconstructive and inflammatory. WP:NPA makes this very clear: "... Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." Note also "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior", in other words, his past behaviour doesn't excuse your comments. Rockpocket 00:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I was also going to warn you but was beaten to it by Tyrenius and Rockpocket. You should be in no doubt that such language is unacceptable. If you have a problem with another editor, you must follow WP:DR, not start slinging accusations around. --John 00:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever

If someone said I had a pro-Gibraltar and anti-IRA POV they would be totally correct. In the context of that particular discussion Vintagekits clearly says that the views of others, especially those from Ballymena, do not count, he intends for force his POV on the article for political reasons. I find that any system that allows that is wrong and said so, firmly but politely. Please recognise what the problem is and what it is not and don't simply attack the messenger. --Gibnews 07:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No-one is attacking you, merely enforcing an absolute core value of the project, namely civility. Two wrongs do not make a right. If you have a problem with another user there are various legitimate and productive ways of dealing with it. This was not one of them. --John 00:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Giving in to demands is of course one solution to resolving situations of conflict. Too much has been already said and I do not propose to discuss this further. --Gibnews 01:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Sorry to bother you again but I notice you are edit-warring on the inclusion of a band there. I was particularly concerned you used the edit summary "RVV remove the reference if the AfD succeeds not before". RVV is used for vandalism reverts; this is quite clearly a content dispute, not vandalism. You both need to take it to talk please. --John 02:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just trying to keep inoffensive useful appropriate sourced material on that page, and have already explained why at too much length on the talk page. If continually removing that is not vandalism or trolling, I stand corrected. --Gibnews 09:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
It's called edit-warring and is seriously frowned upon. Please don't keep reverting. --John 17:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I just checked your block log. As I see you've been blocked for 3RR twice before, please consider this a final warning. If you revert again on Gibraltar you will be blocked. Consider if the importance of this difference of opinion regarding the inclusion of links to two bands on the article justifies this risk before you take it. There are always better ways to proceed than edit-warring. --John 17:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you could suggest the same thing to others who only remove material and have nothing to add apart from critisism. --Gibnews


New article

I have just created: Military history of Gibraltar during World War II, take a look. Chris Buttigiegtalk 20:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff. --Gibnews 10:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That is quite a good video; where was the salute conducted at Coaling Island? Chris Buttigiegtalk 16:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No the naval base, thats the pier in front of the tower. There were some interesting shadows from the seagulls in the run up, but as soon as the guns got going they left.

http://www.gibnews.net/cgi-bin/gn_view.pl/?GPIX070613_1.xml

--Gibnews 17:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the gulls do the same thing in the runway and they use the same idea - hardly as exciting though.
You have got some good photos in that link, the second last one is excellent. Chris Buttigiegtalk 17:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning

You seem to be edit-warring on the article Gibraltar. Edit-warring is bad. Please stop. I'm sure you know all about WP:3RR but now might be a good time to reread it. Thanks, see you in article talk. --John 00:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was wrong, I see no reason to leave it that way. --Gibnews 07:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I fighting an uphill battle?

I tried editing this article Michael Gaughan (Irish republican) to remove complete and utter POV claptrap with bogus POV sites as 'references', to make it more neutral. I'm not the most experienced of wikipedierers, and now it's been reverted 3 times I'm in a bit of a pickle as to what to do. Maybe I should just leave these old relics for the worship of people of an anti-british disposition? I'm clearly fighting an uphill battle. Biofoundationsoflanguage 07:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because some of the names I see there are rabid and others their running dogs.
Perhaps you could include some sourced material on why Michael Gaughan was in prison to balance the view that the evil brits do that to all Irish people, don't see how they could object to that.

--Gibnews 08:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I've just added a POV tag to the article of which it is certainly worthy. I will see what happens. Biofoundationsoflanguage 09:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope my asking for your help doesn't get you blocked. Particularly as I've now given up on that article. I've decided it's pointless pursuing the matter. We've kept the sovereignty of Northern Ireland and ultimately that's all the matters. If people of a republicanist disposition want to keep their dead martyrs alive on wikipedia then I should probably be magnaminous and turn a blind eye to it, even if it does undermine wikipedia's core value.
Good luck. Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, be happy ! --Gibnews 20:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

NPA warning

Please focus on the edits that others make rather than the editors who make them. This is unacceptable under Wikipedia standards, and will not help you to achieve the changes you wish to make in the article. As I seem to have given you a lot of warnings recently, please consider this your last warning. If I see you edit-warring or insulting other editors again, I will ensure you get an enforced wikibreak. Please don't let's go there. There are always better ways to resolve difficulties. --John 01:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

If the 'other methods' are simply to give in to unreasonable demands and to present nonsense as the truth, then I dissent. --Gibnews 10:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, you will keep getting blocked with that attitude. People here who talk about the "truth" always worry me. On your return, please remember that this is a joint enterprise, and that the standard for inclusion revolves around verifiability, not truth. --John 15:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that a lot of the references used are hopelessly biased, or plain wrong. You will see I have tried to replace some with authorative sources rather than internet rants. However, I do find it hard to have someone tell me what the currency used in Gibraltar is when they have never seen it and I use it every day. Its also frustrating that articles about real things of interest are deleted and total rubbish like Fly Gibraltar are kept when fewer people voted to retain them. However, unlike George Bush I do not get messages direct from God, so don't worry too much, and if I did I'd ignore them. --Gibnews 20:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Your comments about the currency - directed at me - are just another variation on your (oft-used) "argument from residency" (that residents are better qualified to know about the place that they reside than non-residents). This argument is utterly flawed, for reasons that would reveal themselves to you if you thought for just a few moments about the consequences and counterexamples, but let us temporarily suspend sound reasoning and grant you for a moment that it is valid. Unfortunately, your conclusions would in this case be entirely wrong. I have been to Gibraltar twice. Having purchased goods, accommodation and - dare I say it - alcohol, during my stay there, and having therefore handled the currency notes of Gibraltar myself, am I not - by your logic - equally able to discern what the currency of Gibraltar is? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that particular dispute is all but over. BUT only need to open my wallet to reassure myself what it is, but can't remember what colour a 500 euro note as have not seen any for several months. If you had visited Gibraltar some years ago, the currency notes then were indeed 'Gibraltar Pounds' they are not anymore. You might also remember visiting shops and bars that have closed down and been re-developed, that does not make them real today.
Given the number of people that seem to read my user page, perhaps I can sell advertising.
You might also reflect you have clocked more specific personal attacks than my general comment here about those with a particular agenda - I take it in the spirit that you are simply argumentative and as you spend too much time and effort at it must enjoy it. But don't worry, I'll be back and maybe we can find some common ground to agree on. --Gibnews 21:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we've already found some common ground over the currency situation - a wording that we are both OK with - so it seems we are making progress, no? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by by a personal attack. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. You were previously warned by three admins quite clearly not to continue with abusive remarks.[7] I told you quite clearly, "If you leave another post like this,[8] you'll be blocked. It is totally unacceptable." You have now now left another abusive comment clearly directed at particular editors.[9] You were asked to apologise, and the matter would have gone no further.[10] Instead you deleted the request.[11] It is particularly egregious, when the subject of the provocation Vintagekits is making efforts to keep out of trouble. Please desist in future or the length of blocks will increase. This block is for 24 hours. Tyrenius 02:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll go on hunger strike until they unblock you! Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "There was no personal attack - it was a general cautionary comment"

Decline reason: "I am concerned that, in your unblock reason, you do not appear to understand that your comments were inappropriate, and you show no sign that you are not planning to repeat them. Therefore, I think you should wait out your 24 hours under the block. — FisherQueen (Talk) 12:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

I dispute that the original comment was a personal attack, no particular user was mentioned. It was advice to someone who asked not to waste his time on a page of interest to a group of editors with a particular POV. --Gibnews 21:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I concur that no personal attack was written. However, what you wrote will inevitably cause stress (to those who self-identify with your comments) and may, therefore and unfortunately, be seen as incivility. My personal feeling is that there are some admins that lean over backward to defend the indefensibly biassed editors while totally and utterly losing sight of the requirement that our encyclopaedia articles fairly represent all non-trivial sourced points of view and that the editors they are mollycoddling are driving away better contributors...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 00:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. one might wonder why my user page is so avidly read by editors looking for trouble. --Gibnews 22:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Postscript - I note that the editor who self-identified with my indirect comments and complained about them has now been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for those things mentioned, and has self-destructed in a pile of expletives. Perhaps we can all get on with business and draw a line under the matter. --Gibnews 18:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Mairéad Farrell

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. To help improve Articles, Wikipedia provide a talk page which is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page.The talk page is not a soapbox, therefor, Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for personal views. When writing on a talk page, certain approaches are counter-productive and considered disruptive, while others facilitate good editing. You might like to read WP:TPG.Thank you.--Domer48 10:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Jeez Domer - you here as well!! (Sarah777 02:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

As a conscientious editor ...

SirFozzie has suggested that, as a conscientious editor concerned to improve Wikipedia, you might like to signify your assent to participate in Community Enforced Mediation by signing up Here.If you have any questions on what it would entail, please do not hesitate to ask SirFozzie on his talk page or via email....Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Gibraltar

I'm surprised you say you 'support the Spanish claim' when you hardly know anything about the place. Gibraltar was Spanish three hundred years ago, imagine turning back the clock and re-instating territorial boundaries in Europe to that time, not to mention Ireland.

Gibraltar today is a highly developed, self-sufficient, self-governing territory with higher average earnings and a better standard of living than most EU states. Quite why we should 'hand over' our homeland and all the things we have added to it, the new hospital, roads, housing estates etc to a foreign Government, simply because they want it defies reason.

Unlike the situation in Northern Ireland, there is virtually nobody living in Gibratar in favour of such a thing, we recently threw out a 'joint sovereignty' proposal as one wannabe colonial power is one too many and two would be unthinkable.

If you believe in self-determination and freedom of people to govern themselves, its hard to square that off against a 'Spanish reclamation' against the will of the people and the imposition of a foreign state upon the unwilling.

Its a recipe for disaster.

--Gibnews 15:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are right. I thought this was a Britain v Spain issue, but with Gib heading for independence (am I correct in that?) I would agree they are entitled to it. My comments were partly a reaction to a perception that you were attacking a source just because it was (thought to be!) in Irish. I now withdraw my support for the Spanish claim. That will have them shuddering in Madrid, eh!Regards (Sarah777 19:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
I'm sure the British won't lose any sleep over your lack of support. Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, she has read the article and realised the Spanish claim is undemocratic, and changed her mind about supporting it so reason has prevailed. Stop complaining ! Spain will probably arrest an Irish fishing boat if they hear of this. --Gibnews 17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Meh, I'm sure her anti-british sentiment is stronger than that of democratic principle. Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought being pro-democracy implied anti-British. That has certainly been the Irish experience. And now the Brits want to hand over Gib to the Spaniards!? (Sarah777 20:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

Well you thought wrong! Britain was the inventor of democracy. YourPTR! 21:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is that in a modern Europe Government needs to be answerable to its people. That way excesses can be contained and good government the consequence. Twice in recent history we changed the GoG for not delivering what people wanted, and the people of Spain exercised their right to get a more honest Government than the PP. Soon the UK electorate will need to make a choice of 'more of the same' or the Conservatives. --Gibnews 11:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sarah777 is an Irish republican troll who should mind her own business. We demand the reunfication of the British Isles by Ireland rejoining the United Kingdom WHERE IT BELONGS! Gibraltar can not be indepedent because 1) its far too small & 2) It's as British as Britain itself & 3) it belongs in the United Kingdom. YourPTR! 21:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar is not moving towards independence either. It's being given more self government much like Scotland and Wales also have. It's getting the territory ready for integration with the UK as a British nation of the union. YourPTR! 21:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

This is an honest question out of curiosity, so don't take it the wrong way, but I was wondering whether there might be any support for an agreement along the lines of the Hong Kong/Macau one country two systems approach, but with a few "improvements":

  • Gibraltarians remain British citizens as well as acquiring Spanish nationality
  • Children born in Gibraltar to Gibraltarians alive at the time of the handover have the same status as children born in Britain (ie they can pass British nationality by birth to the next generation, even if born outside the UK)
  • Gibraltarians retain full democratic control over Gibraltarian issues, including immigration from Spain, but not foreign policy and defence
  • English is maintained as the official language
  • Gibraltar's economic/tax status etc is maintained
  • This situation is written into Spanish law and cannot be changed save for approval by a majority of the Gibraltarian population

Or is Spanish sovereignty just a total no-no, whatever the terms? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Its a total no-no.

Like Britain joining the USA or Ireland the UK except there is more support for both those.

One colonial power is one too many and two would be a disaster, those things you list are not new, we have them already. Our current degree of independence allows us all to live well and provide for future generations better than Governments in either Spain or the UK do for their citizens.

We simply do not need the likes of Jack Straw making decisions for us. I believe we convinced him of that when he came and heard the message.

Joint sovereignty died the morning after the referendum, before that it was as popular as tertianary syphilis.

Maybe in 20 years Spain will be different, ask again then. --Gibnews 23:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the answer. I'm also interested to read that you view the Brits as colonial powers. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
According to Spain they are, according to Britain in the UN The new constitution provides for a modern relationship between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom. I do not think that this description would apply to any relationship based on colonialism. -- Emyr Jones Parry.
According to us, its nice to have a friend who you can ask for assistance occasionally, particularly when they have nice big gunboats, and who on other occasions we can help out. --Gibnews 23:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

2 wrongs don't make a right. Hong Kong was an appaling sellout and the same mistake will not be allowed to happen to Gibraltar! Come on, let's get real here. The obvious solution is to integrate Gibraltar into the United Kingdom as one of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom alongside England, Scotland, Ulster and Wales and it's only Spains idiotic claim to British territory that is holding this natural and essential process up! YourPTR! 21:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar Constitution Order 2006

Feel free to fix this up as you see fit, you know about politics than I do. Chris Buttigieg 20:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

OK added a para on the origin --Gibnews 23:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Land Reclamation

I think land reclamation is awesome. I've read online that there is massive land reclamation going on in Gibraltar right now or that such action is planned for the near future. It's so exciting to think that 1) Gibraltar and therefore Britains territory is increasing, 2) The British Empire's terrible decline over the last century is finally starting to be reversed & 3) the future area of the United Kingdom which Gibraltar will be joining is increasing. Any idea what the total land area of Gibraltar will be if and when this "massive land reclamation" takes place? Has it started already? And one final question will all the reclaimed land be part of the mainland or will they create any islands? It would be so cool if Gibraltar had offshore islands as well as mainland territory! Thank you. YourPTR! 21:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm we are reclaiming land from the sea for Gibraltar for practical use, not some imperalist dream. There is indeed an island, but it is part of Gibraltar.

--Gibnews 22:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

So far the area has increased from 2.25 to 2.53 square miles but some online sites are claiming it is high as 4 square miles! I just wondered what the likely maximum area will be once land reclamation work is finished. So there is a real island in Gibraltar not connected to the mainland? Where can one find an updated map showing latest reclaimed areas including this island? Gibraltar deserves to be larger in size and seeing as Spain will not cede the United Kingdom anymore existing land, land reclamation is our only option. YourPTR! 07:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There are some interesting maps on www.mae.es which show Gibraltar in 1704 amd later. The Island, cryptically called 'The Island' is a luxury development built on an artificial island in the harbour. I'll post a link to a picture. Its more or less completed and the houses all sold.

'Space' is the final frontier here --Gibnews 14:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be great. :) So dude, are you in favour of the devolved integration of Gibraltar into the UK as an equal British Nation alongside England, Scotland, Ulster and Wales? YourPTR! 18:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Short answer No

Longer version:

Disclaimer - as an unelected loudmouth I speak for myself.

In the past the development of countries has required a number of disparate states to band together to form a large enough nation state to be able to defend themselves and create a viable domestic market. With the emergence of the EU whose mission is to produce a level playing field across a huge area, that is not so important. You can now buy Heinz baked beans and shop at LIDL everywhere. Nor do you need onourous paperwork to go to live and work in another EU state. In that context, Gibraltar simply does not need to be part of Britain for any purpose apart from EU membership. We have our own laws and Government which comply with their rules and prefer to elect people interested in OUR future and not, say, the interests of Scotland.

--Gibnews 16:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

On another note. What sort of imperialist called people "dude"? Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Just 'coz we are imperalists doesn't mean we can't be hip! :P YourPTR! 11:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

dunno, anyway here is a picture of 'The Island' being built, the houses are now up. The picture was shot from the flight deck of HMS Invincible;
Note: all the buildings in the background are built on land reclaimed in the late nineteen eighties.

--Gibnews 20:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Gibnews, whats going on with the Oddessy and all that controversy regarding the Spanish coins? I saw a piece on it on Spanish TV yesterday and, although there was no explicit Gibraltar-bashing involved, they did say that the Oddessy boats are stuck in Gibraltar so as to avoid capture by Spanish police... --Burgas00 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good place to be to avoid the Spanish authorities. I understand the court in La Linea has filed some papers requesting Gib co-operation in the UK, because they do not recognise the Gibraltar administration. That is not a recipe for success.
The loot is safely in Florida, perhaps Spain wants to reclaim that too. Don't think the Yanks ever actually paid the price agreed for the place. There is also the story of the "New Flame" described as being in "Algeciras waters" and is a few hundred yards off our lighthouse. The straits are a very busy place for shipping. --Gibnews 19:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I will check that picture out, thanks. I didn't realise land reclamation went back as far as the 1980's although when the British were building the network of tunnels through the Rock they did use the rubble extracted to reclaim a small strip of land. :) As for Gibraltar's *future* political status it will never be independent we know that and we also know that as long as those apes remain on the rock so to will the British!

Gibraltar's democracy of course has very recently been substaintally enhanced and presumably that will pretty much be the final political status IF integration does not come about (I can't see why it wouldn't sooner or later). The 1713 Treaty with Spain simply doesn't allow for independence. Never mind the fact it is far too small and for Gibraltar to be independent would be like any medium sized town in the UK becoming an independent state. Complete nonsense (no offense). Of course Gibraltar doesn't want independence or merge with Spain and thank God for that.

Gibraltar is essentially no less British than Britain itself. It has the culture and appearance of any regular town in Britain, just better weather! :D They even use the same currency. I think the future for the British Overseas Territories is integration with Britain, it is the modern way and it is only a matter of time(?). If it was put in a referendum to the people of Gibraltar there would be overwhelming enthusiasm for such a proposal. I am sure it would pass easily! It would also secure Gibraltar's British status for good and satisfy UN demands for deconolization. YourPTR! 10:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That island looks quite tiny :( any idea of the size? Is it completely surrounded by water? Do you have to use a boat to visit? Or is there a bridge linking it to the mainland perhaps one that can be raised to allow boats to pass through? I read somewhere that there was an artificial island being built (I presume the same one!?) and it was going to be half a square mile in size(!) that surely can't be right? Or can it.. YourPTR! 11:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In the case of 'the island' I believe there is a bridge. There are other reclamations planned.
In terms of the future of Gibraltar, that is a matter for the Gibraltarians to decide. If there was a referendum on 'Integration with Britain' I for one would be putting up the NO posters. But there won't be because nobody would get elected these days on that platform. Read the manifestos which are currently being drafted for the next election when they go online and see if you can find that mentioned :)

--Gibnews 15:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I would second Gibnews on the NO vote.
"It has the culture and appearance of any regular town in Britain". You have obviously never been to Gibraltar. Either that or you wore blinkers on your visit. As for Gibraltar's independance, never say never... Gibmetal 77talk 20:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course these days, what with being part of the EU, soaring crime rates, devolution, corruption, rubbish political parties, freedom of speech being eroded/removed, ID cards et al. Why would anyone voluntarily sign up to be part of the United Kingdom?
Gibraltar seems to be more British in its ways than Britain is these days. It's a monument of a greater time.
As for building artificial islands getting the Empire going again, I wouldn't get your hopes up. A much better place to start would be Zimbabwe. They're in need of our help. Biofoundationsoflanguage 07:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree with a lot of that, excepting that Gibraltar has ID cards and they are seriously useful. They are also issued free. I also had a UK one. For security reasons the current one is not on my website see here nor does it seem that Google images has one. --Gibnews 19:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The difference being that yours won't be linked to some huge database? We'll be made to pay some ever increasing fee for ours, and fined if we don't get one. I'm planning to just take the fine and hope that some government in the not-too-distant future will scrap them. For us it's just one step closer to [[1984 {book)]]. I hear now too that a senior judge has suggested everyone's DNA be put on a database too. This is after every child in the country is put on a child's database, of course. Ugh.
May I be extremely rude and ask you what you do? I'm guessing either media or law. I could be completely wrong, of course. Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The proposed UK system goes a lot further than a simple ID card scheme, and raises questions. The current policy of recording a dna profile of anyone arrested may be good for the police, but future data mining is a concern.
My last job was cleaning toilets with a mop, no republican senators came cottaging, but it was great fun and allowed time to contemplate what future awaits us, and how only some things can be cleaned up with bleach. --Gibnews 20:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Some interesting articles

I have discovered some interesting new Gibraltar-related articles:

-- Chris.B 12:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha that looks like my pic of the New Flame, which is much like everyone elses :) I did a story on wikinews about it.
For a long time the CIA factbook insisted we had a railway, I found someone who remembered seeing in in the 1940's

--Gibnews 14:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just linked to your story on wikinews.
A railway in Gibraltar? That's the first time I've heard of such a thing! I also remember having read somewhere that traffic drove on the left in the 1920s or thereabous. The things you can glean from Wikipedia are amazing. This may keep you amused to. -- Chris.B 15:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Does the Governor's car have a little flag on the bonnet? What sort of car is it? Biofoundationsoflanguage 10:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The railway was used in the construction of the dockyard, I found some picture of it and it was mentioned in the CIA factbook until recently.
The Governors car is a large black one, I think he flies a flag on occasions - will dig out a photo of it at the recent ceremony of the keys. --Gibnews 18:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
If I am not mistaken I think it's a Rolls-Royce. The number plate (if you wish to call it a 'number' plate) simply carries an embossed ensign of the British arms - now you can't beat that can you. -- Chris.B 22:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I thought it was a crown... Gibmetal 77talk 22:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
If it's like other Governors' cars, it'll have a Crown rather than a number plate and probably have a Royal Coat of Arms just below the rear passenger window. Could it be a Daimler Limousine? Or possibly its remarkably similar, though more expensive rival Rolls-Royce Phantom VI? Biofoundationsoflanguage 09:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)