Talk:Gibraltar: Difference between revisions
Imalbornoz (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 219: | Line 219: | ||
{{od}}I just note (a) you haven't responded to my comment on ''content'' or (b) my question on sourcing. Instead we have a wall of text, deterring outside editors from commenting. Instead, we see a series of threats, ''ad hominem'' and references to something that happened 8 years ago. I have no intention or desire to waste my editing time in fruitless discussion on past matters. So you either respond to my comments ref ''content'' or I would suggest you don't bother replying. In addition, I would appreciate an assurance that your proposed edits are based upon access to sources enabling a balanced view of the prevailing literature. Again if you don't have access to the sources you're quoting I'm at a loss to see how you can propose an edit that reflects [[WP:WEIGHT]] or [[WP:NPOV]]. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 14:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC) |
{{od}}I just note (a) you haven't responded to my comment on ''content'' or (b) my question on sourcing. Instead we have a wall of text, deterring outside editors from commenting. Instead, we see a series of threats, ''ad hominem'' and references to something that happened 8 years ago. I have no intention or desire to waste my editing time in fruitless discussion on past matters. So you either respond to my comments ref ''content'' or I would suggest you don't bother replying. In addition, I would appreciate an assurance that your proposed edits are based upon access to sources enabling a balanced view of the prevailing literature. Again if you don't have access to the sources you're quoting I'm at a loss to see how you can propose an edit that reflects [[WP:WEIGHT]] or [[WP:NPOV]]. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Wee Curry Monster|W]][[Special:contributions/Wee Curry Monster|C]][[User talk:Wee Curry Monster|M]]</span><sub>[[Special:EmailUser/Wee Curry Monster|email]]</sub> 14:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC) |
||
:Regarding content: please read the introduction of this section. |
|||
:Regarding [[WP:BRD]], it's NOT something that happened 8 years AGO. The mention of the destination of the exodus has been in the article without interruption DURING 8 years UNTIL you deleted it on November 30 2018. Look here: November 28 2018[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gibraltar&oldid=870953420], December 2017[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gibraltar&oldid=817186749], 2016[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gibraltar&oldid=757608608], 2015[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gibraltar&oldid=697580242], 2014[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gibraltar&oldid=640076136], 2013[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gibraltar&oldid=588247238], 2012[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gibraltar&oldid=530427608], 2011[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gibraltar&oldid=467618170] |
|||
:If you want to delete something from a text that has been there for a long time and someone opposes that deletion, you should have patience and try to find a new consensus in the talk page, especially given our history in this article. |
|||
:I will give you the chance to self-revert the deletion and try to find a new consensus. |
|||
:'''Please answer one question''': Have you taken the time to click on the links above to check that the destination of the exodus has been there DURING all those years? - [[User:Imalbornoz|Imalbornoz]] ([[User talk:Imalbornoz|talk]]) 16:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:23, 14 December 2018
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gibraltar article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | Gibraltar was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 10 dates. [show] |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:V0.5 Template:WP1.0
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Sources
Source discussion
Monthly high and low temperatures
As an editor today found fault with the article's statements about January high and low temperatures, I looked to the source to see what it says, and it doesn't seem to back up either version. The statement is,
In the coldest month, January, the temperature ranges from 11–18 °C (52–64 °F) during the day and 6–13 °C (43–55 °F) at night, the average sea temperature is 15–16 °C (59–61 °F)
The source, https://www.weather2travel.com/climate-guides/gibraltar/gibraltar.php, doesn't give a range. It just gives one number, 16 for high, 10 for low, and 16 for sea. I couldn't find ranges anywhere. I note that the listed source is the 2009 version of the document, so maybe it changed.
Also there is another source, used for the table below that paragraph, which has slightly different numbers for August. It would be nice for the article to be consistent, by using the same source or sources for both.
So should we rewrite that paragraph to use the single numbers from the chart, or am I missing something?
As it stands, I have no reason to prefer the old version to the new version, as neither is backed by reliable sources. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've made the change to use the single numbers from the same source as the chart.
- Note that another editor has switched that source since I wrote above. Given the history of mistakes in this section, I did a quick sampling of the source and confirmed it matches the current article text. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511223754/http://www.fsc.gi/fsc/home.htm to http://www.fsc.gi/fsc/home.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at Gib (disambiguation)#Requested move 5 May 2018
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gib (disambiguation)#Requested move 5 May 2018. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48
Change in the lead section regarding governance
The sentence in the lead section regarding Gibraltar governance was agreed upon after a discussion of several months/years and has lasted for 8-9 years. A proposal from Wee Curry Monster wants to change that consensus. I propose that Wee Curry Monster explains here their proposal before we find a new consensus and change it. Imalbornoz (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- This sort of veiled threat helps nobody, just raises the temperature. You should know that by now.
- Could you perhaps cite the precise discussion supporting this specific text? I cannot find it. So far as I can see, your own argument leads to there being no text here at all. I have implemented such a change and given your arguments above and in your edit summaries I have no doubt you will support it. Kahastok talk 20:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't support Wee Curry Monster's edit because it was very confusing regarding a very controversial expression (self-governing) which generated a very long discussion several years ago:
- 1) it said that Gibraltar is "self-governing", which is a term with several meanings, and one of them is in direct contradiction with the fact that Gibraltar is in the UN's list of "non self-governing" territories; therefore, if you say it is self-governing it would be necessary to clarify that it is not "self-governing" in the sense that is used in the UN's list of "non self-governing territories" (a bit of a mess).
- 2) on top of that, he used the expression Gibraltar is "[ [ Self-governing colony|self-governing ] ]", which has several problems: a) the chosen format hides the word "colony" (giving a very partial impression) and b) the expression "self-governing colony" is not accurate since self-governing and Crown colonies were renamed "British Dependent Territories" by Britain in 1981 and British Overseas Territories in 2002.
- I didn't support Wee Curry Monster's edit because it was very confusing regarding a very controversial expression (self-governing) which generated a very long discussion several years ago:
- I think the previous expression was very neutral and it was able to survive untouched for 8-9 years: "Under the Gibraltar constitution of 2006, Gibraltar governs its own affairs, though some powers, such as defence and foreign relations, remain the responsibility of the British government" describes the real situation of governance in Gibraltar without mentioning the confusing words "self-governing" or the UN's list of "non self-governing territories". Personally, I would prefer to mention the UN's list in the lede, but I understand that it might be very controversial, so I won't insist on that.
- I can accept to have no reference to Gibraltar's governance in the lede if the alternative is to have a very long and tiring discussion, given that there is a whole section with the details, although I think it is not the best option. Imalbornoz (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing controversial about the phrase self-governing, that some people do not like it for ideological reasons is immaterial. Wikipedia is not censored. Further there was no dicussion over the text that was introduced and I tend to support its removal as misleading and not representing the main text in the article. The text in the lede was edited because it was misleading and whilst I would support its removal I certainly do not wish to see the misleading version re-added. I also don't think its helfpul flinging accusations of misconduct in edit summaries and I suggest that editors apologise for such conduct. WCMemail 11:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh and the text was introduced by Roger 8 Roger in July [1], I merely corrected it. I modified it as slightly misleading, which is what I referred to above. I would suggest certain editors make sure of their facts before they attempt to smear an established editor again. It seems there are several editors you need to apologise to for your conduct.
Finally, I'd just like to check, do you have any sources this time? Are you still relying on google searches for snippets you think support you? WCMemail 12:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- I am so glad you don't think the phrase self-governing is controversial and, futhermore, that ideological reasons should be immaterial and Wikipedia should not be censored. I will agree with your edit, then, if (in order to keep it neutral) you do not hide the word colony in the link (even though, for the sake of historical accuracy, I would add the fact that the official name for self-governing colonies is now British Overseas Territories) and include the fact that Gibraltar is in the United Nations' list of non self-governing territories. If you are looking for sources, you can see Gibraltar in the UN's list of non-self governing territories here and you can illustrate about self-governing colonies and British Overseas Territories here and here
- I think it would also be a good alternative to restore the phrase that lasted for 8 years in the lead before you and Roger 8 Roger edited it. It was very neutral.
- If, on the other hand, for any reason (ideological or whatever), you are only ready to stick to your original edit (hiding the word colony in the link you included and not mentioning the UN's list), then let's save ourselves a long and tiring discussion and keep governance altogether unmentioned in the lead. Imalbornoz (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- You know all the objections to everything above, it's not like you're some new editor who wasn't heavily involved in those discussions back in the day.
- The real question is, if you do not want a repeat of previous discussions, why are you trying to provoke one? Kahastok talk 20:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well, WCM said that the phrase "self-governing" is not controversial, that ideology is immaterial and Wikipedia should not be censored. It surprised me after his intense involvement in the discussion some years ago, so I wanted to know whether he really meant it (call me an optimist). I understand that you think that it is controversial, and maybe he does too. OK, so do I. I think we have consensus here. Let's keep governance out of the lead. Imalbornoz (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- And there you go again. If you are happy with the status quo with no text, all you had to do at this point was to say nothing at all, or "I accept the version of the text with no mention in it". Given your previous involvement, everything else you've said since that point appears to be an attempt at provocation.
- So I ask again: if you do not want a repeat of previous discussions, why are you trying to provoke one? Kahastok talk 22:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- So I answer again (see my answers above): I have said (3 times) that, even though it's not the best option, no text is better than a long discussion. I have also offered three options for you and WCMonster to choose from. I have said that you and I seem to have a consensus here. So no, I don't want to provoke.
- Your position is clear. On the other hand, WCMonster is the one who does not offer a clear answer. (a) Does he really mean what he says (that self-governing is not a controversial term, that ideology is immaterial and Wikipedia is not censored) and is eager to mention Gibraltar as a self-governing colony (now called British Overseas Territory) and part of the UN list of non-self governing territories? (b) Does he prefer the phrase that was in the lead for 8-9 years? or (c) Does he prefer no text at all? Just information. Question and answer. No long discussion or provocation. Thanks. -Imalbornoz (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- And once again, you claim not to want a long discussion in one paragraph, and then immediately try to provoke one in the next.
- The answer - to your question as to what WCM thinks, to your presumption as to what I think - is that article talk pages are for improving the article, not for having a hypothetical discussion of other things. We have a clear consensus for a specific text, that we have all accepted. At best, further discussion of this point takes editor time away from more useful pursuits, and risks creating unnecessary and irrelevant conflict that may make consensus harder to reach in any future discussions. Kahastok talk 19:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- The term "self-governing" is ambiguous and requires clarification. We don't say that Greater London or pre-independence American colonies were self-governing although they had local assemblies and laws. But in all cases, the U.K. reserves the right to overrule local decisions, which is not how self-governing is normally understood. TFD (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- Are you objecting to the current text on this in the lede (i.e. no comment at all on the subject)?
- The same applies to you as applies to Imalbornoz. We've had long discussions on this before, and we appear to have a consensus on how to resolve it this time. What benefit is there to the reader in our spending the next three months arguing the toss on a pair of texts that we all agree won't go in the article? Kahastok talk 19:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- I object to the inclusion in the lead of the expression "self-governing" or the watered down version "governs its own affairs" in the lead. My point was that if these terms were included, they would require qualification, because self governance generally implies a greater degree of autonomy than Gibraltar enjoys. TFD (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- The same applies to you as applies to Imalbornoz. We've had long discussions on this before, and we appear to have a consensus on how to resolve it this time. What benefit is there to the reader in our spending the next three months arguing the toss on a pair of texts that we all agree won't go in the article? Kahastok talk 19:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- So what? The consensus text does not include either of those expressions. Kahastok talk 21:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm mystified as to why someone would continue to insist I am responsible for an edit, when it has been clearly shown I am not. Suffice it to say, I support Kahastok's amendment, I feel no need to engage in a philosphical debate on a closed matter. I will close by referring the OP to WP:TALKNO for guidance as to how a talk page is supposed to be used. WCMemail 17:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- So what? The consensus text does not include either of those expressions. Kahastok talk 21:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- OK, at least we have a consensus. I wouldn't want to repeat the long and tiring discussions of 8-10 years ago.
- (NB: Please correct me if I am wrong (in my talk page if you want, I don't want to disturb other editors), but I don't get what WCMonster means when he says it has been clearly shown he is not responsible for the edit. The only edit I can see that says that Gibraltar is self-governing (in the last 8 years) is from him: [2]).
- In any case, thanks for avoiding a long discussion. -Imalbornoz (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- You didn't look hard enough. I already gave you the diff. Please stop trying to raise tensions. WCMemail 12:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- In any case, thanks for avoiding a long discussion. -Imalbornoz (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Historical documents of the village of Gibraltar
I made an edit to mention that the population of Gibraltar took the historical documents of the village together with their own belongings when they left it after it was invaded by Rooke's British-Dutch-Spanish forces in 1704. It is well documented fact, mentioned by:
- William Jackson (1990). The Rock of the Gibraltarians. A History of Gibraltar (Second ed.). Grendon, Northamptonshire, United Kingdom: Gibraltar Books. p. 101. ISBN 0-948466-14-6.
- Maurice Harvey (1996). Gibraltar. A History. Spellmount Limited. p. 68. ISBN 1-86227-103-8.
- George Hills (1974). Rock of Contention. A History of Gibraltar. London: Robert Hale. p. 166. ISBN 0-7091-4352-4.
- Isidro Sepúlveda (2004). Gibraltar, la razón y la fuerza (in Spanish). Madrid: Alianza. pp. 91–92. ISBN 84-206-4184-7.
- Allen Andrews (1958). Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar. p. 54.
- Frederick Sayer (1862). The history of Gibraltar and of its political relation to events in Europe. p. 117.
Kahastok not only reverted my edit, but deleted as well part of the previous text (which had been there for 8 years, after a long discussion that caused many users to be banned or blocked). I will restore the previous consensus while we discuss the new proposal (per BRD, as Kahastok has always done even when he had a different alias).
The previous consensus was:"The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the exodus of the population to the surrounding area of the Campo de Gibraltar."
My proposal is: "The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the exodus of the population. The most important settlement was around the Hermitage of San Roque, which, in 1706 Philip V addressed as "My City of Gibraltar resident in its Campo." The city council, banner, and records were moved there, and San Roque became Spanish Gibraltar as the Rock was gradually transformed into British Gibraltar."
It seems Kahastok's proposal is: "The occupation of the town by Alliance forces caused the exodus of the population."
Thanks - Imalbornoz (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- WP:BRD - I suggest you read it. You don't come into a discussion, saying X edit was consensus 8 years ago, I don't like what has been done since so I'm reverting to that - that's not how it works. This article is intended to provide an overview on Gibraltar, as such the history section is quite brief on details. The details of what a population did after they left is tangential information. As such we include the minimum of relevant information germane to the subject and not tangential information. I would oppose the addition of the extra extraneous information proposed and stick with the article in its current state. Oh and I just wish to check, do you have the sources you're quoting or are you relying solely on google snippets? WCMemail 13:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- I have proposed a change (adding content about the historical documents of the village of Gibraltar). You and Kahastok do not agree with it and want to make another change (removing content about the destination of the exodus). I have reverted (my own edit and yours) to the previous consensus (which included the destination but not the documents) and brought it to the talk page.
- As Kahastok has repeatedly explained, when someone makes a bold (and controversial) edit to a long standing consensus and someone does not agree, the thing to do, as per WP:BRD (his words) is to return to the previous consensus and discuss in the talk page. Here there are four examples of Kahastok explaining the policy in an area of your interest: [3] [4] [5] [6]
- Here there is proof that the previous consensus was "exodus of the population to the surrounding area of the Campo de Gibraltar" (for 8 years!!!): November 28 2018[7], December 2017[8], 2016[9], 2015[10], 2014[11], 2013[12], 2012[13], 2011[14]
- I have to remind you that you have been banned and blocked from this article several times. One of them the sanction said that should you “return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.”[15]
- I also remind you of the procedure included in the sanctions (on Kahastok, you, me and another editor) the last time this issue was taken to ArbCom. Discretionary sanctions were lifted some time later, but I think we should have learned the lesson by now and we shouldn’t need the intervention of ArbCom. The procedure said we should
- '”not make any substantive edit to Gibraltar unless they have posted on Talk:Gibraltar explaining their proposed edit, and 48 hours have elapsed since the time of the posting, and no editor objected to the proposed edit.”'[16]
- Removing the reference to the exodus to Campo de Gibraltar (as you want) or adding details (as I want) are both substantial edits.
- Let’s talk about the proposed edits here before we make any change. Thanks! - Imalbornoz (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Imalbornoz, the sorts of threats - and, let's be clear, they are threats - that we see in your above edit make it less likely, not more, that you will persuade other editors to agree with your position, because would suggest that you are trying to create a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. We are supposed to be working together. All of us. You appear to be trying to work against other editors.
- I also notice that you have also been trawling through my edits from nearly nine years ago, which seems more than a little creepy.
- You are correct that you need consensus before you make your edit, and as such I suggest that you try to get consensus. Reality is that of course you can't expect every editor who edited this article in more than half a decade to have made a proposal on talk and waited 48 hours before making the edit, just in case you came back and objected to it. This is a Wiki, not a bureaucracy. Per WP:BRD you need consensus to make your edit. I suggest you make your case we can all discuss it.
- And when you do it, if you genuinely don't want a repeat of what happened before, you won't mention personalities, you'll focus on the issues at hand with a constructive attitude (i.e. not trying to bait people after consensus has been reached as you did above), and you certainly won't bring up anything that happened back in 2010 and 2011. Kahastok talk 18:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- I have reminded all of us (including me) what had happened the last time we discussed this in order to avoid it. It would not make any sense to make a threat including myself in it, would it?
- Regarding your comments from years ago, I kind of had a dejá-vu when I saw WCMonster going in a loop about WP:BRD and I remembered that the last time this had happened we were able to solve it recurring not to my own arguments (which unfortunately tend to fire him up more than convince him, no matter what I say) but using your own words (Which seem to be much more persuasive for WCMonster). So I dived to find those diffs I had used 8 years ago... and it seems they worked!
- To be honest, 'all' of this is a bit of a dejá-vu... Let's see if we are able to get through without falling into past mistakes. Thanks for trying to de-escalate the tension. - Imalbornoz (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Oh! Wait! You just made an edit changing the consensus that has been standing there for 8 years (please see my diffs above). Please, self revert or we will repeat the story. I trust you will revert to the previous consensus according to your own words. - Imalbornoz (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- (In order to avoid a potential conflict due to misunderstanding, I have left a message in Kahastok's talk page explaining why the consensus version mentions the exodus to the surrounding areas of Campo de Gibraltar, before we go back to that version and discuss our proposed changes here. WCMonster, I know you feel uncomfortable receiving messages in your talk page from some editors, so I will please ask you to read my message in Kahastok's talk page. Thanks) - Imalbornoz (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I just note (a) you haven't responded to my comment on content or (b) my question on sourcing. Instead we have a wall of text, deterring outside editors from commenting. Instead, we see a series of threats, ad hominem and references to something that happened 8 years ago. I have no intention or desire to waste my editing time in fruitless discussion on past matters. So you either respond to my comments ref content or I would suggest you don't bother replying. In addition, I would appreciate an assurance that your proposed edits are based upon access to sources enabling a balanced view of the prevailing literature. Again if you don't have access to the sources you're quoting I'm at a loss to see how you can propose an edit that reflects WP:WEIGHT or WP:NPOV. WCMemail 14:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Regarding content: please read the introduction of this section.
- Regarding WP:BRD, it's NOT something that happened 8 years AGO. The mention of the destination of the exodus has been in the article without interruption DURING 8 years UNTIL you deleted it on November 30 2018. Look here: November 28 2018[17], December 2017[18], 2016[19], 2015[20], 2014[21], 2013[22], 2012[23], 2011[24]
- If you want to delete something from a text that has been there for a long time and someone opposes that deletion, you should have patience and try to find a new consensus in the talk page, especially given our history in this article.
- I will give you the chance to self-revert the deletion and try to find a new consensus.
- Please answer one question: Have you taken the time to click on the links above to check that the destination of the exodus has been there DURING all those years? - Imalbornoz (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- Former good article nominees
- Selected anniversaries (August 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (April 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (April 2006)
- Selected anniversaries (April 2007)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2007)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2007)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2008)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (August 2010)
- B-Class GibraltarpediA-related articles
- Top-importance GibraltarpediA-related articles
- GibraltarpediA-related articles
- B-Class Gibraltar articles
- Top-importance Gibraltar articles
- All WikiProject Gibraltar pages
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- B-Class WikiProject Cities articles
- All WikiProject Cities pages
- B-Class United Kingdom articles
- High-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- B-Class British Overseas Territories articles
- Top-importance British Overseas Territories articles
- All WikiProject British Overseas Territories pages
- B-Class Spain articles
- Mid-importance Spain articles
- All WikiProject Spain pages
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- B-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles