User talk:Gibnews

Please do not edit archive contents

No Troll feeding!

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

WP:ANI

Someone has posted about your actions at ANI The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Before you remove this as harassment, know that I had come here as well to let you know, but RHPF beat me to it. That was just a courtesy note, he didn't create the ANI report and hasn't commented at it (as of yet). -- Atama頭 01:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnet.com

Gibnews, I have warned you that inclusions needed to be discussed, especially when they get removed per a (a.o.) WP:RSN discussion (here). You however insert the link again here. I again, strongly suggest you to discuss additions, and especially re-additions (and to check if your additions are actually re-additions). You know that there were several editors agreeing it was not a reliable source. Also, the document you are linking to is not an original, but seems to be a scan of a document. I'd like you to be careful with such additions, and to carefully take into account to link to the original, or to just name the document and not link to it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the document is not available anywhere else, and as you say it is a scan of an original official document that was issued to me. I'd be very happy if someone could find an alternative but I think its important that there is some reference to support what was a major change in relations between Spain and Gibraltar.

However, if you are referring to an IP editor that ain't me, it could be anyone, including someone who wants to get me banned. --Gibnews (talk) 14:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Now I did make a mistake, the IP added a scanned document, which is not original, you added a text-document which was not original. I am sorry for the confusion, but well, in the end, they are only copies. And no, both are available elsewhere. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If both are available elsewhere, then it would be nice if the editor removing the existing link replaced it with one that pointed to the document. A quick search does not find a copy of the cordoba agreement. Putting original documents online is rather hard as they are paper :) However the electronic versions have the same legal status. --Gibnews (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an original source would be better and a good secondary source even better, and that the typing of an editor who has a strong point of view is not as reliable a source as I would like. (Gibnews, how happy would you feel about relying on a text transmitted only by a Spanish nationalist?) But, rather than remove the reference, I'd prefer to see it tagged. A quick Google does indeed find no independent text of the document which Gibnews has kindly transcribed. Within limits, and until something better can be found or someone complains that it isn't actually right, it has its uses. Dirk, could you give us the reference you have found? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I can say that no typing was involved in the case of the tripartite agreement and the observers report on the referendum. --Gibnews (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No, if the editor could not find it. But if the documents are not the original, and if the source they are now sourced from is not reliable (as asserted), then the sources should be removed (maybe in combination with the information), as leaving these references there gives a feeling of reliability which is not there.

Regarding http://www.gibnet.com/texts/trip_1.htm, that document is available from e.g. liberal.gi (liberal party), gbc.gi (a newspaper), gibraltarinformation.com, gibraltar.gi (official gibraltar website??), panorama.gi (another newspaper), gibfocus.gi (site now for sale). Please discuss the sources and their appropriateness on the talkpages, I'd go for either the liberal party, and/or for one of the newspapers, seems more reliable then this site. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

See for examples: this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

But wait, the reference is to the Cordoba Agreement, what Panorama shows is the last trilateral meeting which is different. The coverage by GBC is incomplete and their website (like the liberals) only recently has documents. The Liberals have re-typed the documents I scanned, but seem to be the ONLY other site with decent content. Perhaps someone might like to compare the ones on Gibnet.com to see if they have been altered in any way. --Gibnews (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't care to spend time on the comparison, because I trust you to have reported them correctly. That isn't quite the point; we need, as a general rule and as enshrined in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to avoid being in a position where we trust certain types of source. As I say, you might not want to trust a version reported only by someone with strong views that disagree with yours. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I take the point, but the documents section of gibnet.com does not have 'strong views' on any subject. Its a collection of original documents. The website presents them in a neutral manner carefully labelled as to their origin, with comment labelled as such and documents identified as to their source. Some of them are hard/impossible to find elsewhere although people are getting better at Internet publishing, that site has the advantage its been running for 15 years and is stable. GBC recently revised their website as did the liberal party and voided any old links. We also recently saw an example that an organisation was willing to allow its material to be published on Gibnet, but had reservations about the licence terms for Wikipedia. On the talk Gibraltar page someone cited PWC as a reliable source, and what they had on their site was utter nonsense. If anyone compares the documents on Gibnet.com to others on the net if there are any differences, I'd be interested to hear.

There is incidentally material from the MAE and the Spanish equivalent of Chatham House included with consent and presented in a neutral manner. --Gibnews (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought I saw about 40 hits, I only did a quick scan of some of them. I still think that the talkpage is the best place to discuss it all, and to see which one is deemed the best; I am not a specialist in this issue, people on the respective talkpages may be. I would see if you can get to a consensus, maybe 2-3 different sources together are the best (though I don't expect any of them (except maybe for a typo left or right) to be different). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Break

Gibnews, I think it is clear from my previous posts that I declined blacklisting (until now) on the basis of the absence of widescale uncontrollable abuse (and I think that that is still the case). I do however see the problems with reliability of the site. I also do note that you are affiliated with the site, which would give you, to a certain extend, a conflict of interest. Now that guideline does not forbid you to edit, it does however suggest to take extreme care. That is why I strictly ask you to not re-insert references to your site yourself, and to do a bit of checking before including references to your site (I am worried that I so easily find several hits with Google regarding the only two documents I checked ...). Please err on the save side, and discuss, even if your doubt is minimal. The area you are editing in is often disputed, there is even a history of POV sock-editors, etc. etc. Discuss things on the talkpage, choose the best references when editing directly (and when that is on gibnet.com, explain that choice when you use it, or discuss it first anyway), I don't like pre-emptive blacklisting of sites which may be of interest (and force discussion through blacklisting), but, as an other editor once said it, sometimes a mosquito net is more effective than swatting the mosquito's. And I do see that other regulars do feel it may be appropriate to blacklist. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, were you to look at my editing history of late you might find I have been trying to use other sources since another editor complained about me citing Government press releases on gibnews.net rather than the Government site. The problem is that gibnet.com has the best collection of documents. However rather than enter into long discussions and be accused of all sorts of things, I may have a word with the owners of the site and suggest locking out incoming links from wikipedia. --Gibnews (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And why would you do that? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ownership of gibnews.com

Hi Gibnews, I've been off for some weeks (paternity leave, you know :-)). I haven't taken part in the discussions on your sites, but after a quick reading I feel very surprised about your "loose" affiliation with both gibnews.com and gibnews.net. With regard to the first one, I can remember that you are the owner of the site (see here and here). Obviously your conflict of interest is clear. Just for the sake of clarity. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that you found the material on gibnet.com worthwhile enough to copy and paste onto wikipedia including a typo. I find the suggestion that both sites are in any way disreputable rather offensive and based on ignorance. Yes I created the code and scripts that manage the sites. The content is from its authors and the suggestion its rubbish imputes them more than me. The suggestion that there is ANY conflict of interest is simply a way of discrediting a useful repository of documents and lists of information.

The section describing the ten year struggle to get the Eurovote is referenced and the opposition to preventing EU citizens being democratically represented factual, although it should bring shame to the UK for not having done it before it was forced, and even more shame to Spain for its opposition.

At some point in the future, your children will read the story of how a large nation used all the dirty tricks in the book to disadvantage a group of 30,000 people simply because they did not want to be annexed. Unless you manage to rewrite and cover it up by the sort of tactics I see used on wikipedia.

But for the moment I have other more pressing concerns.

As I have stated the sites are owned by companies. --Gibnews (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Gibnews, I'm not really interested in your obsessions. They have made us waste huge amounts of effort. I just wanted to highlight that, in the past, you've claimed to be the owner of the site (not the creator or the person in charge of the maintenance). It makes it an unacceptable COI from your side (not the only one, but the most obvious nowadays). Not to talk about your contradictions (sometimes you're the owner, sometimes you're an employee...). --Ecemaml (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As I have stated the sites are owned by companies, I am responsible for the HTML and scripts. I am not interested in the Spanish obsession about Gibraltar feel free to waste however much time you have on promoting the cause, but its a non starter.. --Gibnews (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

You are aware that the /* */ stuff is only for section headers, right? If you want to add to the edit summary you do that after the */. Not in the middle of it which produces a link to a non-existant section on the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)