User talk:Gibnews/Archive 2

Do you know anything on Gibraltarian

Gibraltarian has returned again. User talk:212.120.227.108 is Gibraltarian. As they have made a number of repititive edits to the exact same pages in the exact same way as Gibraltarian, I've reported this on the case file. I think something needs to be done. The Ip isn't blocked, and its from Gibraltar. Sheogarath 19:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no point whatsoever in blocking that IP as its part of a pool and is dynamically allocated. If the problem continues, there are more direct methods which can be used. Please distinguish between a user called 'gibraltarian' and Gibraltrian IP's (like mine) --Gibnews

I know :D - there'd be no point at all, when he can just unplug his modem to get a new IP - the only block would be a range block on the whole ISP, which would do far more harm than good! Martinp23 12:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

adding an sprotect template does not protect the page!

Ah but it seems to have scared him off :) --Gibnews 23:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

:D Martinp23 12:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Tito Benady is the author of the main reference of the article. I am pretty certain he hails from Gibraltar. Have a look at the 1st reference.--Burgas00 15:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt he would be happy with the use of any of his material in connection with this page. --Gibnews

Well I dont see why since his article is a history of Spanish Gibraltarians since the Treaty of Utrecht. Maybe you should phone him up and ask him.--Burgas00 15:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Strange it smelt of something else to me --Gibnews

Update - It looks like he's trying to appeal to the ArbCom (but seemingly taking the "I did nothing wrong" stance) [1]. He already tried many times on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and that page even got locked for a while when his ranting became out of control. I've seen his statements way too many times, and each time I see it my emotions sink. As a result, I'd rather not be involved directly. Scobell302 19:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to defend lost causes, but he did have a point in places the Gibraltar pages are now reasonably accurate and most of the original anti-Gibraltar Spanish propaganda has been removed. --Gibnews

Gibraltar

Since Onofre Bouvila's comment was derogatory and inflammatory rhetoric, rather than a fair and balanced request to improve the article, I don't think there's a need to keep any of it. I reverted Gibraltarian's response due to Wikipedia's banning policy. However, I don't see the point of your response. You're spending time arguing against a pointless attack from someone who's probably not even going to listen. Why don't we just blank the whole, largely irrelevant thread?

Calling his comments "fascist nonsense" isn't going to help, either. Even if it is "fascist nonsense," you're just asking for confrontation. Be better than the trolls, and help keep this place civil, please.

Seek out an administrator if you still need help. Wikipedia:Requests for comment and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration are the final places to go for dispute resolution, but there are plenty of people that can help along the way.

And finally, don't worry, I read every edit, and I don't intend on blinding reverting an entire IP range. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Hey! I was just telling facts. I'm not the only one who holds this point of view. If you felt offended, you must think that many people also does by your attitudes. As seen for most of the real native inhabitants of Gibraltar, the actual people living in the Colony are just a bunch of invaders and pirates; don't take it bad, I do not pretend to offend you nor anyone. I am just trying to explain facts. There's a lot to talk about this, but basically the two reasons I am going to tell you now are just what tryed to explain in the Gibraltar's article, and that you removed for no reason.

The first one is that Gibraltar is an ilegally occupied territory in the mainland of Spain; the peoples that lived there were kicked and today a day their descendants are still living in the surroundings of the city. So it's not something from the past; it is a problem that still exists today.

The second one is the obvious fact that a country like Gibraltar cannot stand with its own resources, because it has absolutely nothing: it exists because it's a strategical point for the UK. To keep Gibraltar alive, this country fills the Colony with privileges that are not given in the rest of the UK and this fact generates instability on the region. If Gibraltar obtained its independence, the UK would no longer economically maintain the Colony, so it would have to find alternative ways to survive. And everybody knows what does this mean: a tax haven in the mainland of Spain, which would drastically increase the instability in the region.

So it is not only about historical reasons that it results infamous and offensive that those people of Gibraltar, who invaded the lands where they are living in and today proclaim themselves to be the native inhabitants of the region, ask for their independence. It is also because of safety reasons in the region.

Check this article, for example, which explains the economical factor very well (it's in Spanish but I guess as you seem to live in Gibraltar, at least, you speak the native lenguage of the region: the Spanish):

http://www.cafebabel.com/es/article.asp?T=A&Id=1714

And there are lots more of articles talking about this, you just have to search at Google.

When I edited the Talk page of the Gibraltar's article I was just trying to discuss about these facts, that are not explained on the main article. There's no reason to call an admin. The fact you felt offended is your own business. Maybe I also felt offended because of the opinions you hold, where only the own Gibraltarians or whatever are they called must be the ones who choose their future: and what about the native people of the region?. Maybe I also feel offended because I am a descendant of the peoples who inhabited there and who were kicked by the people that is currently living there. Maybe now I feel offended because you deleted my post and called an admin. Maybe it is me who should call an admin. But bah, who cares? Just learn to respect other people's opinions.

Onofre Bouvila 23:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

---

yeah but no but ... No

Everyone has an opinion but facts can be established; some Spaniards left in 1704, were you aware that Gibraltar was a penal colony ? Probably not but they and the people who settled here then are all dead. Get some perspective on history.

PS: I did not delete anything. --Gibnews

Burgas00

Gibnews, I think you should check my edits to Spanish Gibraltarians over the past weeks. You will see I am not trying to use it for an anti-Gibraltar agenda and Im being as NPOV as I can. I am also taking into account much of your criticisms and have edited the article in "your" direction. Lets just try to keep moderate. Spain, as you know, is now working for reconciliation with Gibraltar, not to take the place over as was its intention in the past. It is now time that you moderated your political stance and that this be reflected in your contributions to wiki.--Burgas00 13:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that I may be moving to Gib in June:-) Not certain yet though....--Burgas00 13:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I genuinely look forward to meeting you, however if you come here you will quickly become subverted as has the MAE spy 'agent B' and you will start to look at wukipedia articles differently :)

--Gibnews 14:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Confused

You left a message for me on my talk page that confuses me, both in message and in message title. This seems responsive to some sort of conversation but I do not recall sending you a direct message at any point, although I have been marginally involved with the AfD discussion on Spanish Gibraltarians. I'm also confused by the message title, as it seems to be correcting my use of "Gibs" but I don't recall ever having used that abbreviation (or any other) in those discussions.

My best guess is that you intended to reply to another user and mistakenly chose my talk page. If so, just letting you know so you can send the message to the correct person, and no worries :) If you wish, you can reply to this either her or on my talk page, but if not I'll assume you forwarded your note to another person. -Markeer 18:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Referencing system for Spanish Gibraltarians

I have no problem with you altering the content within the article, it is just when you revert, then you are vandalising the referencing system. If you want ot add new information go ahead but you are going to have to edit it in without deleting the referencing system Vintagekits 18:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

So you say, but I feel you are the vandal, please refrain from reverting it. --Gibnews 19:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont care about the content - you took out the referencing sytem. That is vandalism. Please explain how you think deleting the referencing system is not vandalism. If you want to alter the content of the article then go ahead be my guest, however, you are destroying the structure of the article by reverting. If you want the new content to be added, then copy it into the article - do not delete the referencing system. Do it again and I will report you Vintagekits 20:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I do care about the content ! --Gibnews

Yes, I dont care sufficiently about this issue to get into an editting war with the likes of you. What I do care about is wiki - and you abuse it over and over again! Vintagekits 14:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is this guy so aggressive?--Burgas00 16:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I think he is upset about the British 'occupying' Gibraltar and think they should go home, failing to realise that the majority were born here and this is our home. He may also have an issue with me over the pages describing the shooting of Irish terrorists in Gibraltar, where I try and be factual although in my opinion those who came to blow up myself and innocent kids got swift justice. --Gibnews 18:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

History of Gibraltar

I was tidying up the wording, and have given the reference for the introduction of the term the issues of sovereignty which first showed up in the Spanish version of the Brussels agreement, the British version was later revised to agree.

If you need any proof that Glacis estate and the other parts mentioned are an integal part of the territory of Gibraltar I can cite the telephone book, however should you call any of the residents and ask if they are living in spain you may get an unhelpful reply.

As resolution 2353 (XXII) refers to a 'colonial situation' and the new constitution is described as a 'non colonial one' there is scope for further missunderstanding.

PS: Merry Christmas.

--Gibnews 18:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Gibnews, as you probably realised. I did not complain about any improvement to the article, simply about putting opinions on wikipedia's institutional voice. The way the sentence I removed was written gave me that impression. By the way, I think Gibraltarian has been ranting again (a copy and paste job, as usual). Have a nice xmas too. Asterion^talk 18:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Things should improve now that the airport restrictions have been removed, Iberia reports its fully booked. For some political reasons the helicopter to Ceuta has not been allowed, not sure why anyone would want to go there particularly but it might be fun. There were around two hundred journalists at the airport covering it, wonderful positive publicity. Reports say the telephones are working too. --Gibnews

Sorry I have not replied any sooner. I will try to check the article this weekend. Regards, Asterion^talk 08:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Summarised/Summarized and other abuses of the former Colonials

To Gibnews, who must be more well-versed in the Wiki than I:

Use of "English-English" as opposed to "American English" isn't wrong, so much as it is (to my sense) nonstandard. And so this becomes a style issue.

Neither England nor America owns the language; presumably we (the speakers) do. Yet the UK dialect has the lorry, the bobby, roundabouts, the chemist and the loo, while the US dialect has "yadda, yadda," "jumped the shark," "ba-donk-a-donk," and the third-person, plural, possessive "y'all's." An English woman who says "knock me up sometime" might not mean what an American girl means. Referring to corned beef and cabbage as "bubble and squeak" is likely to produce stares in the States, just as calling a trolley a "buggy" might befuddle a Brit.

An equitable solution might be to altogether avoid words with regional spellings, but there are few words that mean gray/grey and too many instances of this phenomenon.

The sick part of all this is, chances are, the wiki guidelines mention this problem, and I haven't applied what I haven't read. But then, it's an encyclopedia. Or encyclopaedia. Whichever.

Best wishes, Jessemckay 07:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think one needs to distinguish between differences in spelling and slang and the meaning of words.

If we are writing for others to read and be informed, both need to be treated with respect. On a page describing a technical subject which has application to all sorts of English speakers, I suggest that where a spelling varies between English and a bastardised variant, that the version inserted by the original author should be left alone. Thus I would not dream of changing summarized if you wrote it however horrendous and appalling it looks to me.

However, on a page which describes a national topic, the spelling should reflect the localisation of that place, so on the page about the UK saying the flag used the colors red white and blue is wrong, although it would be correct on the page about the USA.

This also applies to changing the references to Football to Soccer on the Gibraltar pages, which is wrong, whereas on a page about the game in America it needs a different word to prevent misunderstanding.

--Gibnews 11:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I concede that there are many flagging arguments to defend de-Britification. An ad populum appeal would fail because so many international readers have learned the UK dialect. A nationalist appeal would fail as well - Wikipedia is not an American creation. The wiki model does not particularly support an appeal to authority. An appeal to tradition seems to be more supportive of the British as well. The RPG language and the System/36 were certainly popular in the UK. But all these arguments are moot at their creation; only one rationale remains.

I believe that an article best serves the readers when its style does not argue with its content. The reader of a professional or technical article such as ours should not be challenged by style shifts generated by multiple sources and edits. I wrote an article in English because that is my language, and in the USA dialect because that is my dialect. Having done that - having used "color" instead of "colour," and so forth - this became the standard, for good or ill. I wanted to write an article about a business programming language that people could read and enjoy. You have added to this article, and it has become better.

In this spirit we will not have an argument here because there is no argument; there is only the work, and our appreciation of the work, and our development that allows the work to move forward.

Future visitors and contributors to our article are not bound by our wishes, and, through patience or persistence, overtake us. This is the highest praise we will receive, that someone else thought enough of our work to contribute.

Thank you for your interest in the RPG II language, and thank you for your contributions.

Jessemckay 18:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Your website

I would like to have your website's address, to check for the higher resolution images you mention to be available (copyrighted) there. I hope it's OK to post the URL here or in my talkpage. If not, you may send me an email (pfc432atgmaildotcom). Thanks in advance! --Pfc432 02:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)