Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 6

message: Careful everyone, or this will end up in the Lamest Edit Wars hall of fame... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is completely lame and utterly pointless. When people nationality is attacked they are provoked. There is an important point though: this is a violation of WP:NPOV since it makes it look like it is wikipedia policy to recognise Spain's claim as valid AND a violation of WP:CIVIL since it upsets users without adding any utility.  (talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) 01:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you realise you're contributing to the lameness, as have I been.  Look back at the talk page everyone, there's more space devoted to discussing the flag on the talk page than the article itself.  This is ridiculous!  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am trying to end the lameness, which will roll along forever and ever until it is removed from the wikiproject.  (talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) 01:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean you will continue the lameness until you get your own way? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 02:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I just found this yesterday.  I have never been to Gibraltar and I am not even British! But this is clearly wrong, and needs to stop now.  (talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) 15:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags And Templates And Things 

message: Ok the current version of the page is acceptable to all parties. There are no flags but the article remains within the scope of all the relevant projects. Can we please move on to something else?
--Burgas00 12:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about!? There are 3 flags.  (talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) 16:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 4 flags so nothing is resolved, SqueakBox 16:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No its not enough, the flag is still there and the wording says This article is part of WikiProject Spain which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the history, languages, and cultures of Spain Gibraltar is not Spain.  Their culture is not my culture, their language is not my language and their claim is not wanted by 99% of Gibraltarians, according to our recent referendum. --Gibnews 19:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...a perfect demonstration that you are trying to hijack Wikipedia for political motives.  I see you conveniently failed to mention the "history" of Spain, presumably because Gibraltar was Spain, and is therefore relevent to a project one of whose stated aims is to cover Spanish history.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 19:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I think it's about time to draw a close to this particular discussion and move on. The only reasons that have been put forward for removing the WikiProject template or its component elements are (1) simple nationalism; (2) a claim that a particular article is "owned" by its subject(s); and (3) a claim that local political cultures can dictate the management of article development on Wikipedia. (I stress management, because this is essentially an administrative issue, not a content dispute.) These three reasons are inapplicable and fundamentally contradict our most basic principles - for which read Wikipedia:About. So, to make matters absolutely clear: there will be no removal of the flag or the template, and attempts to remove either will be treated as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I hope that makes the position clear. -- ChrisO 20:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seem like time to make a Wikipedia:Request for comment to me as I dont think swhat you augest is acceptable. So we should get some further opinions and I would have thought an Rfc is the best way to do that, SqueakBox 20:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can make a RfC if you wish, but absolutely fundamental principles can't and won't be overturned that way. The principles in this case are so fundamental that you'd need - at the very least - to take the issue to Jimmy Wales, and I can tell you that you won't have a hope in hell of getting him to overturn the principles on which he founded Wikipedia. Your view that there's such a thing as a "Gibraltarian space" and Gibnews' view that "foreign" WikiProjects aren't to be allowed are in total contradiction to Jimmy's vision of what Wikipedia should be. Frankly, if the two of you don't want to follow those principles, you'd be better off going to somewhere like Wikinfo, which has a "sympathetic point of view" policy which would seem more suited to your objections. -- ChrisO 20:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are talking nonsense, wikilawyering, and twisting wiki policies to suit your own POV. There are no firm guidelines as to what the remit of wikiprojects should be, but now it looks like there will have to be.  (talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) 00:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And your claim that we would have to go to Jimbo is absurd and not backed 
up in any policy. Actuallyu it should be for the editors here to decide but when one admin comes along unilaterally threatening (with blocks etc) the editors here merely for making good faith edits or having a discussion then Rfc is clearly appropriate. For me if these flags offend one user they should be removed, its as simple as that. If we use policies to discourage good faith users then I assume the policy is being mis-read, SqueakBox 01:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so. Let me quote from WP:NPOV: Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable".. The applicability of Wikipedia policy isn't a matter to be determined by debates among editors or RfCs. It's always applicable, all the time. Carving out a "safe space" for one nationalist user is about as fundamental a violation of NPOV as you can get, and as I said it's something that totally contradicts Jimbo's founding principles. -- ChrisO 07:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV has nothing to do with this, CIVIL on the other hand does.  (talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) 21:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Absolutely, I keep reading 'a personal veto', 'one particular editor' etc. People need to accept that this is not the case. Chris Buttigieg 13:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough

message: I just reverted an anon IP who blanked the article to "Gibraltar is a city in Spain" and changed the infobox to a spain-centric one. I also notice in the history there has been repeated anon vandalism. Given the obviously contentious nature of the article (based on talk pages), should I request semi-protection to prevent sock puppets and anons? CredoFromStart 14:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandal warned. Low rate of vandalism which doesn't warrant a semi-protection for now. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It happens from time to time, the more subtle vandalism is worse. --Gibnews 17:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'm still getting a feel for when protection is warranted. Good article, too, to all you heavy editors! CredoFromStart 15:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the edit history of Colosseum for an example of when semi-protection is warranted. I SP'd it indefinitely a few days ago - a very rare step, but unfortunately one that's necessary for a small number of high-profile articles (United States and George W. Bush are similar examples, for obvious reasons). Fortunately this article isn't quite in that category. We do have one obsessive repeat vandal, but other than that it's pretty good. -- ChrisO 18:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Falkland Islands would benefit from semi-protection as most of the vandalism comes from anon editors, often very repetetive however the temperature of the dispute over Gib is a lot lower than in the past. --Gibnews 20:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protect? 

message: I think I recall adding Gibraltar's twin city, Ballymena to the article some time ago and it was deleted. Any particular reason? Gibmetal 77 00:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: stick it back.  (whatever happened to Goole?) --Gibnews 00:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just have. I never heard about any twinning with Goole, I've checked its article and it just says there was once a movement towards twinning with Gibraltar. Gibmetal 77 01:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember being sent the Goole times weekly, a search on Google finds this reference: Goole most definitely *was* twinned with Gibraltar, in 1969 to be precise, and you can read an account of how this came about on page 4 of the Goole Times of August 25th 2005. Further evidence of the twinning is the existence of Gibraltar Court in Goole, and two buildings in Gibraltar - GooleHouse, and George Jeger House named after the Goole MP of the time. The article mentions that the twinning arrangement faded away after a few years. So at least we now know who George Jeger was.  Quite what the synergy with goole as a town was remains a mystery. --Gibnews 08:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I wonder what the connection might have been. If we had a date for when it officially stopped being a twin city it could be added to the artice with (1969 - whatever year this was). Gibmetal 77 08:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Methinks it was one of those things that sounded a good idea to someone at the time, perhaps George Jeger had some friends or relations in Gib, but there was no continuity in the arangement.  As Goole is a port, perhaps thats where the water tankers came from when we were not self-sufficient and both the Mod and Gov imported ?  It was from somewhere on the north east of the UK. --Gibnews 13:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it was probably due to something like that. I've read that Portsmouth was first considered by Gib due to the various connections. However, Portsmouth already had various twin cities and sister links and the government was looking for something that would stand out a bit more. Or something along those lines anyway... I've added it to the section, check it out.Gibmetal 77 13:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, but I changed it to be more neutral. --Gibnews 22:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twin City