User talk:Gibnews

Archive 1
Archive 2

Feel free to comment here, after all it is free ...

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)