User talk:Gibnews/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mary Celeste

I have responded to your note there thus:

1. That refuge of the pedantic "Notes and Queries" gives it with and without. The family history site gives it with the hyphen. The Irish Law Reports of the Chancery case give it as S Flood. However I am not going to die in a ditch on this especially if there is an authoritative reference as to how he rendered his name during his time there.

2. I am aware the IMCO regs were not in force but there were stowage guides around and Briggs and the mate would have been aware of them and have access to them in harbour at the very least. Briggs was an educated and stable family man it seems unthinkable that he would not have known what he was involved with.

3. The more I look the more the will o' the wisp style ignition that merely scared the crew theory seems rubbish. Ethanol explosions in confined spaces seem to be catastrophic see http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/18/2141180.htm for an image of what happens when someone is careless. However if it is a possibility it would be unlikely that the MC incident was the only event of this nature.

Fred seems worthy of an article here. Have you got a lot of background on him or can you point me in the right direction. Would you be prepared to ride shotgun on the article if I kicked it off?

Cheers Albatross2147 (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope you detected an element of humour in my response, I did buy a copy of those multivolumed regulations when I designed a container loading programme in order to properly segregate cargo. Although Briggs may have had a contemporary manual as we do not have access to it, so its speculation.
I was recently involved in a French TV documentary about the MC which comes out at the end of the month and in connection with that went to the Gibraltar archives and looked at the original documents and my recollection is that Solly did not have a hyphen, may have a photo of it somewhere. I also have the reports from the Gibraltar Chronicle of the day which I mean to add to my website on the subject having scanned them but they are hiding.
Having done my own research into manufacturing drinking and making explosions with alcohol as a chemistry undergraduate - I'm willing to believe most things are possible with it - however that is 'original research' The Channel 5 demonstration was by a serious chemist - but was more or the level of a parlour trick than a serious exploration of what might have happened. I discussed it with him in detail at the time.
The TF3 team also visited Australia as I think the series deals with 'ghost ships' their documentary airs on 28/11 but I doubt you get it in OZ, however it may be repeated on France 5 which is more international.
Fred certainly was a strange character, and I feel his belief in the power of drink may be from personal experience. Have a look at the book by Charles Fay. Otherwise without digging around in the archives no idea and suspect he may not be notable enough for Wikipedia.--Gibnews (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well of course he isn't a Seppo and he didn't play some obscure made for TV sport in the US but he was Atty General for a crown colony and was involved in the extraordinary story of the MC so that has made him more than a footnote in history. Meanwhile I'll take the - out of the name in the article.

Australia is not as culturally benighted as you might think. We get a wide range of TV programs from all over shown here. Some in the original language but with sub-titles.

Now some questions:

  • can you get a photo of his grave?
  • did he inherit the Bt from his grandfather?
  • is it true that he originally arrived in Gibraltar in the 1860s to investigate an outbreak of typhoid on behalf on HM Govt?

Thanks for your time Albatross2147 (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


Black Swan Project

Hi there. Just wondering if you happen to have any apt images for this article somewhere in your photo archive? --Gibmetal 77talk 15:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have some pictures of the ships, will dig them out and add to wikimedia. --Gibnews (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Brilliant, that would be very useful, thanks! On another subject, I'm thinking of starting an article on Capital punishment in Gibraltar (see my sandbox). For it, I was thinking of scanning an old photo from Sir W. Jackson's book, but I see you already have a digital copy of it here. Would you happen to have a higher resolution version of it to upload to Wikimedia Commons? --Gibmetal 77talk 21:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gibnews, I've noticed you haven't yet replied to my above question. Maybe you never saw my post... --Gibmetal 77talk 12:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Falkland Islands - Argentine citizenship

I already addressed this point on Justin Kuntz talk page. The article clearly states "Under Argentine Law...", which means that you are about to present an Argentine viewpoint. Argentine law is clear in this respect; native-born Falkland Islanders are not merely eligible for citizenship, but rather, they are full citizens under the eyes of Argentine Law (Argentine Law does not consider the opinion of the Falkland Islanders). Please do not impose your pro-British POV edit. The sentence as I had it is balanced, presenting first that Falkland Islanders are full British citizens (British/Falkland Islands perspective), then mentioning that they are also Argentine citizens (Argentine perspective), and finally highlighting that Falkland Islanders generally reject the Argentine view. The statement as I have is completely factual, whereas having a statement that states that, according to Argentine Law, Falkland Islanders are eligible for citizenship is a material misstatement. I am reversing your POV edit. If you believe that Falkland Islanders are merely eligible (rather than automatically acquire) Argentine citizenship, please show me your source, but I know for a fact that the Argentine law involuntarily assigns Argentine citizenship to all persons born in the Falkland Islands.190.245.141.29 (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The principle involved is that of extraterritorial jurisdiction; Putting it simply Argentine law does not apply outside Argentina, and as the Falklands Islands are not part of that state, its a meaningless and highly offensive assertion. Contractually an offer can be made, but its not binding until its accepted. I interviewed a FI politician who clearly told me he did not want anything to do with a messed up state like Argentina. The interview was published in a Buenos Aires newspaper. --Gibnews (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ongoing

No worries, Gibnews. I know you haven't been very active lately (although nor have I) but I just wasn't sure if you had seen my post so I thought I'd let you know.

I'm able to scan the photo of the last public hanging at Casemates myself from Jackson's book but if you have a better quality version of it, it would be best to upload that one. Just let me know when you get a chance.

I'll review the article on St. Bernard's for you. I've actually thought of starting this a few times since I read a presentation my dad prepared on it's history for a conference in Guernsey last year. So I might find something to add to it later on too.

I have a few ongoing projects in my Sandbox including an article for our National Day, which I've started elsewhere in my userspace (I think I might have told you about this one in the past). Please feel free to pitch in on any of these whenever you're less busy. : ) --Gibmetal 77talk 12:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition, I added a link to the feature from Dr Benady which has some pictures of the old hospital he sourced. Its very hard getting good overview pictures of both the old and new St Bernards because of their location. I really need to get on top of Harbour Views to get the shot of the new one. --Gibnews (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
No probs. I'll add some pics and refs when I get home tonight. --Gibmetal 77talk 12:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for St Bernard's Hospital

Updated DYK query On March 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St Bernard's Hospital, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar Parliament

Hey!

When you moved Gibraltar House of Assembly to Gibraltar Parliament you simultaneously erased the names of the speakers. When they were in office,the legislature still had the name Gibraltar House of Assembly. Can you do something about that?

Best wishes!

Mbakkel2 30 March 2009 18:25 (UTC)

It certainly was not my intention to delete anything like that as its useful for reference, however we need to differentiate between the HoA and Parliament and I need to check at what point the changeover occured, with the constitution or with the election of a new chamber. Will do some research and do the necessary --Gibnews (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Tireless paragraph

Hi. Since yesterday it was impossible, I propose an edit today about the Tireless issue in the History of Gibraltar article, dealing with the complaint made to the European Court of Justice. What do you think about it? Best regards. Cremallera (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

People in glass houses...

When the day arrives that you get an article to FA status [1] your criticisms of my contributions to Wikipedia will carry more weight with me. A couple of comments from that review: "This article is exceptionally well-written and engaging", "I am very impressed with the article so far, excellent job on a complicated and controversial topic". 95% of that was my work. Until then, I can only say that merely living somewhere does not endow a person with an innate ability to write an encylopaedia article about their place or country of abode. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not spam my user page. --Gibnews (talk)

Gibraltar Parliament, Convent Location

Why did you delete my note about the locations of the Parliament house and the Convent? The statement I posted is accurate, isn't it? I don't see anything about my post that is not "sensible". Inkan1969 (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The wording was rather strange, in the wrong place, and the Parliament is not in a residential area. The link to statistics would be better pointing to the GoG page rather than someones that simply copied information from them. --Gibnews (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I see your point about the link. But I looked through the "Government of Gibraltar" website and I could not find a map of the Residential Areas? Do you know where we can find a copy of a Residential Areas map from an official source? And you said that the parliament building is not in a Residential Area. Do you mean that the Residential Areas only cover part of the territory (besides the rock iteself) and that the Parliament building is in some sliver of land not affiliated to any RA?Inkan1969 (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Unlike many places there are no oficially defined 'residential areas' The parliament building is on Main Street, which is the commercial heart of the town, and although there are people living over shops is not really considered 'residential' and the building itself is on John Mackintosh Square which it shares with two bar restaurants and nobody has a residence on that bit. Hope that explains things. --Gibnews (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Request

I noticed you did a lot of work to the Outline of Gibraltar. Very nicely done.

Please join WP:WPOOK.

We could sure use your help.

The Transhumanist 21:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about self-governing term in introduction of Gibraltar article

By popular request, I have started a discussion in the article's talk page. Please join if you want. --Imalbornoz (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

According to the UN, their goal is that countries like Gibraltar should become independent, be integrated into their governing nations or become associated states. In reality all of them now have all the characteristics of associated states, but I suppose political issues keep the category alive. BTW I think that Bermuda is still on the list of non-self-governing territories. I would be appreciative if you would send me links to those speeches. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Changing history

Gibraltar was conquered in 1704 in the Wars of Spanish Succession. The Kingdom of Scotland was not an ally of England in 1704 and was a seperate sovereign state. In 1704, no country called Britain existed. Gibraltar was conquered therefore by the English - the Kingdom of England if you will. The Kingdom of Great Britain was created three years later - in 1707. It is not possible for a future country to conquer something before it existed! Yes, it is a British overseas territory, but again, in 1704, England conquered it, not Britain.

Therefore, if you restore this again I will lock the article or else block you for WP:POINT per WP:IAR. This isn't a POV debate or a split of perceptions, its quite simply a truism. It is unfair on our readers to rewrite history and therefore any administrative action taken on this will be to protect the reputation of Wikipedia rather than to frustrate you.

If you have a source that a military power called Britain existed in 1704, by all means enlighten us - but I would be astonished that the rest of the published domain has got year of the Acts of Union 1707 wrong to say the least. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The Book by General Sir William Jackson refers to Union flags being raised, not English ones. I'm not disputing that that actual the Act of Union came later, however the troops were not necessarily English.
I think this is a narrow POV debate, and have only just seen your comment, its something that merits further discussion rather than you acting to enforce your POV and as I assume from your threats you are an administrator you should know better than to use that to enforce a personal view in a discussion which has hardly started. That belongs on the Gibraltar talk page and not here. --Gibnews (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar National Day






HAPPY NATIONAL DAY! --Gibmetal 77talk 07:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)






I didn't take many but I might have a decent one of the Lady Mayor and Chief Minister which I'll upload once I figure out why my PC won't take my card...
How about you? Any you can add to the work in progress article? I'm hoping tomorrow's press will have some stuff to add to it. --Gibmetal 77talk 21:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Main page

FYI one of your photos has made it to the Did you know section of the main page today. : ) --Gibmetal 77talk 09:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

MedCab - Capture of Gibraltar

I have listed a mediation case here. You can take a look and participate if you want. --Imalbornoz (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Adrian Johns

Great work uploading the photo, I was actually going to ask you if you had taken one!

Just remember to categorise your photos : ) --Gibmetal 77talk 20:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes dear :) - was rather pleased with that shot, as he was carrying the keys. I thought he only got them when he was sworn in and that was entering parliament, shot from over the railing at the back. --Gibnews (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I must say I was expecting such a response; it did sound bossy which isn't like me. Promise! Lol.
Yeah, nice one. Would have liked to have gone down myself but I was working. --Gibmetal 77talk 00:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I've learnt to say that phrase a lot recently as the kitchen it seems is under new management. --Gibnews (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Future projects

As you may have noticed, I've been compiling a list of possible articles to create. I'd be grateful if you could have a look at it and let me know if you'd be interested in giving any of them a go. Please feel free to add to the list too! Thanks, --Gibmetal 77talk 01:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm thats a long list. Looking at it, it occurs to me that taxation in Gibraltar could be split out of the economy article. I recently updated that and tidied the tables up. I also created an economy of gibraltar article in the Spanish wikipedia (with some opposition deleting it) and although it said 'translated from the English' its probably a better basis for the .en version.
So in the next few days will revisit the .en article, split out the taxation and model the remainder on the .es version. Hows that sound? --Gibnews (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
It is long; there are many things we can write about. It would be great to have some of those, even if they are only stubs with some basic info (and perhaps a picture), as they can be linked to in order to increase the network of Gibraltar-related articles and therefore the readers understanding of the subject.
Sounds great. Taxation needs its own article going into slightly greater detail, but leaving a summary in the one on Economy. We should also try to model the layout on existing "Taxation in..." articles. --Gibmetal 77talk 12:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar/Communications list of magazines

Hi Gibnews,

How are you?

I noticed you removed part of my addition to the list of Magazines published in Gibraltar:

my addition: The Roman Catholic Diocese of Gibraltar also publishes a monthly magazine in partnership with EuropeAxess Media: Upon This Rock [09/11/2009 10:58:17] Pete Boucher:

edited to: The Roman Catholic Diocese of Gibraltar also publishes a monthly magazine: Upon This Rock

To be accurate the text should read:

EuropeAxess Media, in liaison with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Gibraltar, also publishes a monthly magazine: Upon This Rock

If you consider a link to the publishers web page to be spam then I will leave it out of the entry.

You can verify the identity of the publisher by speaking to Fr Charles Bruzon at St. Bernards or Fr. Charlie Azopardi at St Teresas Church, or by calling the production editor of the Magazine herself: Angela Sargent 20079335

Many thanks,

Pete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebouch (talk • contribs) 10:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Listing the magazine title is fine, but the rest looks more like using wikipedia to advertise a company, see WP:SPAMLINK. --Gibnews (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Economy of Gibraltar

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Economy of Gibraltar, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.gibraltarchamberofcommerce.com/docs/GCoC-24920-FletcherReport-Abridged.pdf, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under allowance license, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Economy of Gibraltar saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Ecemaml (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC) PS: read this

I guess the content offended spanish sensibilities. I will deal with any copyright issues without any assistance from Ecemam1. --Gibnews (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Gibews, you may not have noticed but your original reference was to the report, whereas he is only referring to the summary which was also published as a separate document. There is no copyright violation if the correct document is referenced and the summary included in quotes. Justin talk 21:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Unlike the other matters this can be easily sorted out. It is an interesting report, which rather contradicts the view that Gibraltar has a negative impact on the Campo. The above template text is rather amusing considering the allegations of me being 'patronising'. --Gibnews (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Mailed?

Have you mailed it yet? I'm watching for it, and it doesn't seem to have appeared. The system is not that easily readable, however, so it would be helpful if you gave me a keyword to search for. I'm using "Gibraltar" as it seems a term likely to appear in your letter, but if you didn't use the word, I still might miss it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Got it. Am in the process of processing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive?

Wow, stating that there was no active involvement of Gibraltar in WWII until 1940 is a "disruptive edition". You're kidding, aren't you?

You possibly know about the Phoney War, that conscription was introduced in Gibraltar in 1940, that evacuation plans were drawn up and implemented in May 1940, that Churchill considered the evacuation of Gibraltar in June 1940 or that the City Council was suspended in 1941. Right? Anyway, you can go on playing your role game. Please, if you consider my edition disruptive, don't hesitate to denounce me and explaining my "disruptive" edition. --Ecemaml (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you know when war was declared and that the declaration included Gibraltar as a British territory. So the start of the war is not different in Gibraltar, indeed as a military base preparedness for war started earlier rather than later. I think you are trying to wind Justin up with tendentious edits, and me with references to 'most noble cities' in Spain, on the Gibraltar talk page. The point of Wikipedia is to produce quality articles and not to engage in warfare with other editors. --Gibnews (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL... "tendentious edits". Are you really complaining about "tendentious edits"? The same person that included this in a wikipedia article? The same person that invented this? "Quality articles"? Don't make me laugh :-DDDDD --Ecemaml (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you review wp:npa. As for Peter Hain being engaged in a 'sell out' that was the headline used in the UK media, for which there are threereferences. That was certainly the perception based on his television interviews, which I have archived. Its an English expression which describes the situation. Being disruptive will not do any good, either for wikipedia or the lost cause of the reclamation of Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, read it also, and then return with some comments. Maybe you learn something. Also WP:AGF. Nice reading. On the other hand, as you know, my English is poor, but possibly you'll understand this: the Spanish claim "me importa un pepino". I have no interest in your rock, in you Gibraltarians on in whatever has to do with your former colony. However, I do worry about the massive inclusion of propaganda in whatever article. And it happens in your articles (you see "If you only have trouble with Gibraltar do something else where your efforts are appreciated"). BTW, your mention to Gibraltarian and other "good editors" do not surprise me at all. I didn't get rid of him, but the ArbCom. It seems as if you support his behaviour? Good to know it. --Ecemaml (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, we are vigilant in keeping propaganda OUT of Gibraltar articles, flawed statistics about CO2 emissions, Spanish Gibraltarians in San Roque, magic fences on stolen land and the like have no place. Please do not put words in my mouth over banned users, or waste my time further with this nonsense.
If the intent is to annoy me to build up a case of a complaint - as you tried before - it will fail. Spain is a large country, there is scope for adding lots of content about it to wikipedia which has nothing to do with attacking or insulting Gibraltarians. There is little point continuing this dialogue on my user page. So don't. --Gibnews (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"High res version available for money"

Hi Gibnews. Please, take a look at this notice I've left in Moonriddengirl's talk page. Thanks. Cremallera (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Kaiane Aldorino

I had literally just uploaded one of mine as I read your message. I'll add it to the article too. It's been a great day for Gibraltar... --Gibmetal 77talk 23:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I took around 150 pictures, people waving flags got in the way a lot. --Gibnews (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Tell me about it! Fortunately I got a good view most of the time as I managed to squeeze through the crowds as politely as I could : ) --Gibmetal 77talk 19:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Seasons greetings, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Justin talk 23:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics

Hi. You left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics the other day saying that you had started a discussion somewhere but had not received any comments. Could you please provide a link to the discussion? Thanks. Road Wizard (talk) 10:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

done --Gibnews (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

On the isthmus

Hi friend, I've made a change on the "Disputed Status of Gibraltar" article, regarding the isthmus. I've basically supported your view that it is an integral part of Gibraltar, but I've just specified that this is a de facto situation. I think this will eventually overcome the controversy on this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duringtheweekend (talk • contribs) 18:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair comment. PS: welcome to wikipedia. --Gibnews (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI

This is unacceptable. Whether the IP belongs to Telefonica de Espana or not is irrelevant. You've been asked repeatedly to stop qualifying other editors. You can't edit/modify other's comments without their consent either. That is *enough*. I've filed a complaint in the ANI. --Cremallera (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Really, can you cite where I have been 'asked repeatedly' I think you are getting very excited about adding useful information to unsigned comments. --Gibnews (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You and User:Justin have been reported on AN/I for repeatedly disrupting the Gibraltar article by blocking verifiable information you seem to dislike. JCRB (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you need some sense of perspective. --Gibnews (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Death on the Rock and the 1 Revert Rule

This article is subject to a 1 Revert Rule! That is, you can only revert once in any 24 hr period. You have reverted twice, I suggest you self revert and use the article talk page. --Domer48'fenian' 13:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused as there is no warning on the page about any restriction, or at least none I've seen. In any event its not a revert but all edits including yours are changing the text to make it better and more accurate. I have used the article talk page to try and explain the position and make suggestions on avoiding a dispute.--Gibnews (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Self-government

Talk:Gibraltar#RfC:_Self-government Guy (Help!) 11:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ceuta etc

Any particular reason for removing it, the parallels are compelling? Justin talk 20:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be valid on the 'disputed territory' page, but like San Roque its got nothing to do with Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

m:Global sysops/Vote

You or someone with your username has voted in m:Global sysops/Vote but you don't have a SUL account. Please merge your accounts or add a link from your Meta user page to your local user page to confirm your identity, or your vote may be struck. Thank you, Nemo 17:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threats

I wouldn't want you to miss my reply in all the verbosity on that talk page [2]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

ps on an unrelated note, I suddenly remembered our good friend Gutterbrothers. How mysterious that he came and went in the space of 48 hours. [3] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at info-en@wikimedia.org and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 18:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gibnews (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not made any legal threat. a) I pointed out that in another media defamation would result in legal action, and that I was not the party who would be involved. This is a setup to get me banned by an editor who has been attacking me for some time.

Decline reason:

As is quite clear from the 2 posts here, you advised someone to provide their real name so that they could be sued, and attempted to quash discussion with potential legal issues to come. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have seen your e-mail. As a journalist myself, I tend to be more careful in choosing my words. Your first post noted is unmistakable in its meaning, at least in its current form. You may have meant differently, but it's what you said that counts in writing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
As I see I can edit here, I have reverted the initial reaction from RH which is by way of a wind up and set up. There was no intention to intimidate him and clearly that did not have that effect. The second para is a reference to an editor he had a dispute with which he thinks is a sock of mine, it wasn't and I haven't ever created another account.
His messages here are routinely deleted as they are usually designed to annoy, as was the one now reverted.
I created this wikipedia account in 2005, round about the time of writing the perl code which drives gibnews.net as sounded like a good username. I have since tried unsuccessfully to change my username to avoid any confusion. Wikipedia is not very good at that. I am no more responsible for the CONTENT of official press releases on that site than whoever wrote the code behind wikipedia is for its content. The Terms of Service make it clear that all content is 'as provided' and is not edited. Implied allegations of fraud in citing press releases by the Governors office are unwarranted and designed to provoke a dispute. --Gibnews (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Seriously; knock off the holier-than-thou legal junk. No one from Gibralter is going to be serving anyone with a subpoena because they said that some news aggregator was, by Wikipedia's definition, an unreliable source. I'm inclined to unblock you simply because the legal threat was laughable. However, it was a legal threat - in the sense that you are trying to "win" this argument by threat of legal action. "Shut up, or someone I know might sue you". You cannot do that. Until you understand that, and state that you understand that, and - this is for the rest of our benefit - state that you understand why Gibnews does not meet our definition of a reliable source, I won't be unblocking you. Tan | 39 00:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I am trying to be calm and reasonable about this. For the avoidance of doubt, I retract my comments fully (although I cannot currently remove them myself) However its pretty clear the original comments by RH were crafted to provoke a reaction, as his earlier (reverted) messages on my user page indicate. I have NOT threatened to sue anyone. With respect, I doubt you are qualified to comment on legal issues in the EU. My experience is that littigation only makes lawyers rich, and is to be avoided.
In relation to gibnews.net as a reliable source, I've re-read wp:rs and it seems to meet with the policy. If you feel differently, lets start a discussion about that as a seperate issue. As I have stated, I wrote the programs that manage the site, the material is provided by verified content providers. In the case of the item RH is rubbishing, the Office of the Gibraltar Governor. --Gibnews (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Gibnews, your use of the words "implied allegations of fraud" suggests that you have not understood the reason for your block at all and are continuing in this legalese threat mode. To remind you, I said that gibnews.net is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia's policies, nothing more. That goes for whatever content is hosted there, be they quotations or otherwise. If you want to continue editing Wikipedia, you have to accept what you wrote was wrong, and retract it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I have previously asked you a number of times not to post messages on this talk page and would appreciate it if you respected that as it only aggrevates the situation further. --Gibnews (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews, guess you can see why I want to quit. I tried to set up the wikibreak enforcer yesterday but it didn't work. In a way I'm glad it didn't, ignore what Red Hat says, you and I know it was a wind up even if others don't, please just retract it. While you're blocked he is continuing with his long term agenda to have gibnews.net banned as a source for documents we both know you won't find anywhere else online. I hope you can see the sense in this, I know you can be a productive editor even if sometimes you let your emotions get the better of you. Nil illegitum carborundum. Justin talk 11:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews, thanks for taking the time and trouble to email me. I appreciate what you say about the trustworthiness of your employers and their policies/programs. I'm confident that you can provide evidence that gibnews.net is as you say a reliable source for the excerpts it presents, indeed nobody is in a better position to provide that evidence. When I'm dealing with an excerpting service whose reliability has been questioned, I'd like to see some statement that a third party has found a sample of its outputs to be faithful to its inputs.

It's painful to see so many hurt feelings on the Gibraltar page. I hate to have to say this, but I too would have taken your comments to be unacceptably close to a threat of legal action and it's to your credit that you have retracted them.

I would still be grateful for your comments on my latest suggestions. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gibraltar&action=historysubmit&diff=343203100&oldid=343199711 Feel free to email me with those comments. I am trying to get away from simple absolute statements about slightly complicated realities, simple statements which have generated a great deal of verbiage and an unfortunate amount of personal rancour. I want to come up with an agreed and accurate commentary which may achieve long-term stability. I hope that you too feel that this is a worthwhile objective and justifies ignoring personal attacks and feelings of deep hurt. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


Reliability of gibnews.net

Richard: In relation to gibnews.net, I wrote the software that drives it the same way someone wrote the software backend that displays wikipedia pages. If you feel a statement from the content providers as to the accuracy of the press releases there would be beneficial, I can request that is included. All documents are in any event signed. However from his first showing on the Gibraltar pages RH has been confrontational rather than constructive. Where this suggests that an official press release has been tampered with it is foolish as well as that would be totally against the site policy which is to present things 'as is' with permalinks. You will see from the list of broken links on the Gibraltar pages how often other sites change their structure. --Gibnews (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews, I'm grateful all your work, even the bits that I disagree with. I don't doubt your good intentions. I also believe what you say about gibnews.net and I'm confident that you can provide the evidence that has been requested.

I think it's fair to say that Red Hat has his good points too and I hope that you can work constructively together. I appreciate that this will require careful self-restraint from both of you! Liking each other is optional... Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


WP:ANI

As you have followed up your initial "legal threat" with another, I have posted a message at WP:ANI [4]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible unblock

Gibnews, per your retraction of your legal threats, I am inclined to unblock you. However, there is currently a proposal to blacklist gibnews.net from this project, and it has fairly strong support and is looking to pass. Can you give me an indication of your actions once unblocked? You are welcome to participate in the proposal discussion. The salient question is, would you abide by a community-implemented blacklist of gibnews.net? Tan | 39 15:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I must say I am surprised that Wikipedia would seek to block a site which has a unique collection of original documents, presented 'as is' and without comment or agenda. I am not surprised that some editors might. Gibnews.net has also contributed a large number of original pictures to wikimedia commons, are these to be removed too? Not having seem the rationale for blocking it, I can't really comment further, and as repeatedly stated gibnews.net is owned by a private company, not me. I write software and take pictures. - but I can assure you I won't be taking legal action over it. If Wikipedia supresses Gibraltar sources on the Gibraltar pages because it upsets foreign editors it will be a poorer, less reputable and more biased place. Indeed, I've only used references to gibnews.net recently where the documents are not available elsewhere, for example the Governors office who do not maintain a website.
Yes I'd abide by it but if there is censorship of 'things Gibraltarian', I would not feel comfortable about making any substantive further contributions to Wikipedia. --Gibnews (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Acceptable. I have unblocked you. I encourage you to go to ANI and build a case, if you wish. Tan | 39 17:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, but WP:RSN is a noticeboard for evaluating the reliability of sources. Bringing up Gibnews there might be helpful, and should open it up to evaluation by independent editors. -- Atama頭 18:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Good idea will do. Thanks. I've just been reading the attempt to get me permanently banned for being a sock, scary how easily some people fall for it. --Gibnews (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:COI

Gibnews, you answered my questions (thankyou for doing so), but I don't feel that the other editors who replied there are taking the COI matter seriously enough. Therefore I have posted at the COI noticeboard. If the other editors at COI have no objections to you continuing to use gibnews.net, then I shall not pursue things any further. However, I will still continue to scrutinize each time you wish to use it, so don't take a stamp of approval from RS/COI to think that it's an appropriate source for any edit you wish to make. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC) ps Happy Valentine's Day

You urgently need a sense of perspective; you are not an administrator here and you are most certainly not my personal watchdog. From day one you have been confrontational and seem to want to give me grief. You have alleged sockpuppetry trying to get me banned for being someone else and know its utter BS. The above message suggests a severe lack good faith and a desire to harass me. My advice would be to back off, go and do something productive elsewhere on wikipedia, or get out more.
If you do what you have promised a there will be a complaint for wp:harass I don't need it and up with it I won't put. --Gibnews (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Administrators are just the janitors. They don't have any special rights over and above you or me, save for the ability to use certain restricted functionality to keep the operation running smoothly. And I'm not harassing you - if you are unwilling or too defensive to have your site scrutinised, you shouldn't be trying to use it on Wikipedia. Also, please remember how this all started. You harassed me by twice making legal threats (you can see that as one of the items on WP:NPA). You brought this scrutiny on yourself - a series of editors then raised the possibility of blacklisting the site (not me, I just responded to that suggestion) and then you took it to RSN. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Life is too short for many things and this discussion is one of them. --Gibnews (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In response to your latest COI post (I do not wish to engage in a squabble with you there, it is not on the subject of the page, and it just irritates other editors), it is you that is now doing the twisting. I did not say I would scrutinize all your edits, as you will see if you read above. I said I would scrutinize your usage of this site as a source on a case by case basis. That's not harassment, that's just what good Wikipedia editors do to ensure articles are of the best quality. What is harassment is making legal threats. And, your decision to do that, twice, is why all of this happened. Please don't forget that for the next time. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No you tried to convince people that I was the banned user 'Gibraltarian' when you know that to be total nonsense, and you have also missrepresented the nature of gibnews.net and tried to get it banned suggesting I charge users and steal content off other websites. However this is not a place for arguments; I have asked you NOT to leave messages here so please respect that. Any replies will be deleted, and if you continue to harass me I will make a complaint. --Gibnews (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
That's downright untrue, Gibnews, and you know it. I asked you a series of objective questions so that you could demonstrate its reliability, said thankyou for your replies (at least twice). I did not once accuse you of "stealing content" - that is a bare faced lie (prove me wrong with a diff). I told you here I would drop it if the community felt it was OK to use. And when they did, I dropped it. I'm taking this page off my watchlist now, but please feel free to reply on my talk page if you feel the need to do so: you're not banned from it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you are aware, but the discussion at WP:COI is continuing, with at least one editor suggesting you be blocked for your username. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, the discussion is at WP:COI/N, not WP:COI. Tan | 39 14:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnet.com, plus other stuff

Gibnews, I have nominated gibnet.com for blacklisting [5] and will also be removing all links to it on articles in WP. I know you are not going to like that at all, but if it's at all possible for you to do so, please realise that's not why I'm doing it. This is not the first time I have religiously ensured that a user does not link to their own homepage as a source (or indeed, anyone's personal homepage, unless they are an established expert). Please, if you don't understand why sites like these are not a RS, reread WP:RS carefully or ask at the noticeboard. Specifically, it falls foul of the self-published sources section [6]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not a 'homepage' or a personal site, For personal reasons I have been trying to have a break from wikipedia, but I see your agenda of persecution continues. There are procedures on wikipedia to deal with vandalism and harassment. If you continue this I will be initiating a formal complaint about your behaviour. --Gibnews (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that on this point I tend to agree with Red Hat. Does anyone but yourself actually edit the site, for example? I would like to suggest however that gibnet.com does contain interesting primary sources - old Gibraltar ID cards would be one example - and I hope that these can be made available, for example as Wikimedia images. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Sam Benady MBE is a contributor see [7] plus a lot of others. Based on the negative experiences over the last few weeks, I will not be contributing any further images or substantive content to wikipedia. --Gibnews (talk) 10:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Re Sam Benady MBE, rather than linking on Wikipedia to your site which contains excerpts of his works, the Wikipedia articles should reference his publications directly. e.g. [8] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to add to the page, its more productive than vandalising articles, as you are Spanish perhaps you could help on the es.wikipedia where there is a lot less content that the English language one. --Gibnews (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope the personal matters are nothing serious. I've already started replacing links to gibnet.com with reliable sources, and am finding it very easy via the power of Google. Like, top 20 search result kind of easy. When you have more time, are you able to help with that project? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked specifically you NOT to post on this page? Attempts to wind me up are so tiresome --Gibnews (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gibnews/Archive_5&oldid=1146693114"