User talk:Gibnews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive

Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4

 Archives of this discussion page Please do not change content


No Troll
feeding!

Messages from users considered inappropriate or time wasting will be deleted. Life is short and there are other things to do than argue pointlessly.


Contents

[edit] 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.[1]

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.[2]
  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 [3]. 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)

[edit] 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. --DWRtalk 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.[4] 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.[5]
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. --DWRtalk 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.[6] and you also tried to upload a logo of it onto wikipedia for use on your userpage which was later deleted.[7] 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" --DWRtalk 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)

[edit] 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 77talk 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 77talk 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)

[edit] 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 77talk 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)