Talk:Timeline of the history of Gibraltar

2007 A New beginning

As we enter the New Year, there seems to be a sense of co-operation from Spain and a grudging recognition of Gibraltar's existance.

Hopefully this will be reflected in improved relations and fewer edit wars over these pages.

Our persistent banned user should take a moment to re-read the page and should find that some of his complaints have been addressed and others have and will be ignored.

Similarly those who felt the need to change the Gibraltar flag to a different one have learnt the error of their ways.

So from that point, lets move on.

--Gibnews 12:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Uploading of image

I recently uploaded an image of the 1842 Half Quart coin issue, yet it was automatically reverted as I was identified as 'a new user editing a page that experiences malicious edits...' I think this article would benefit from this image as I see it quite apt. I believe my change can be reviewed and restored by established users. Chris Buttigieg 21:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Asterion for reverting it. Chris Buttigieg 22:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't be discouraged by 'voices of all' because they most certainly are not ! Sadly the Gibraltar pages have been subject to edit wars, and some people assume that any edits with Gibraltar IP's must be bad. The pages could do with more Gibraltar editors, Carry on adding material Chris. --Gibnews

Spanish flags

Although the ancient history of Gibraltar may be appropriate to a series of articles about Spain, it is necessary to respect that in Gibraltar and in connection with Gibraltar the use of the spanish flag is highly inflamatory.

Generally the problem is solved that way.

--Gibnews 12:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment "No enemy flags" makes it clear what your objection is - personal POV. If you read the rationale for WikiProject Spain, it is: "to expand and organise information better in articles related to Spanish history, language and culture." Gibraltar's pre-1704 history very clearly comes under this scope. I would agree that the WikiProject Spain template is inappropriate for the main Gibraltar article, because Gibraltar isn't part of Spain, but Gibraltar's history plainly does come under the WikiProject's scope. Please put nationalism to one side - you can hardly argue that Gibraltarian history has nothing to do with Spain. -- ChrisO 13:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish flag IS a nationalist symbol. Find a formula to remove it.

In any event the Flag_of_Spain shown was not in use at the time that Gibraltar was Spanish. --Gibnews 20:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough I can live with that. --Gibnews 10:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Cordoba Agreement

I have removed the reference to the British Government agreeing not to make nuclear repairs to submarines;

1. The facilities are not capable of nuclear repairs, and never have been.

2. Although mentioned in the Spanish media, its not actually in the published agreement.

--Gibnews 20:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But do note that the addition was made by the banned user Gibraltarian, which is why I reverted it. -- ChrisO 08:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that in Gibraltar IP addresses change periodically, so theoretically an IP from Gibraltar is not necessarily the user Gibraltarian. I once thought that there was one IP address for everyone, but have now learnt otherwise. Chris Buttigieg^talk 08:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I nearly reverted it too. However, in this case it is right. Despite it being claimed in the media as forming part of the agreement, its not in either the MAE or the GoG documents, so taking it out is best. If it was mentioned it would be in the context of double speak as quite what a 'nuclear repair' consists of is contentious, and the GoG is on record as saying they would make it illegal, even were it possible. HMS Tireless has gone but is not forgotten. --Gibnews 09:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Decolonisation etcetera

Why are we adding the Spanish viewpoint to a simple statement of fact in what is essentially a chronology of events? Our job is to report facts, without bias. Saying that X did something because of Y is, by all measures, a neutral statement. Now if one adds the Spanish opinion, or indeed any other opinion, the event would be rendered an entire breakdown of Gibraltar’s decolonisation, a topic which is discussed elsewhere in articles such as Disputed status of Gibraltar.

Also, the article states that in 1706 Queen Anne had no de jure right to declare Gibraltar a free port. Not only is this assertion wholly unsourced, but may well constitute original research in that it puts forward the assumption that “since Gibraltar was not officially British at the time, the British Monarch could not have possibly had the right to declare it a free port”. Original research is described as “unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis” and seems to sum up this latest addition fairly well. RedCoat10 (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi RedCoad, with regards to the first one, I fully agree with you. Our job is to report facts. A fact is that one side of the sovereignty dispute claims that the relationship between UK and Gibraltar is not colonial. The fact is that both UK and Gibraltar government says that (and not that the relationship between both is as they say, something that, in any case, an external and reputable source should assess). That way, I add another fact: the position of the Spanish government (the one that, according to the UN, is also relevant in the decolonization of the territory. To sum up, you're including a POV about a fact (the new Constitution). So, I'm adding another relevant POV, without claiming it's true. Removing a POV is just making the result not neutral. You know that.

With regard to the other one, is so obvious that I don't know what kind of reference you need. Fortunately, I've just received from Amazon The Rock of the Gibraltarians so that I'll add the proper source. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 09:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems we now have a reference for the 1706 free port issue, so that's a start. Good.

Regarding the inclusion of the Spanish POV: the bottomline is that this article is about the History of Gibraltar. What we have is a chronology of events, not an analysis of Gibraltar's decolonisation. By stating that "Mr Caruana did this in the year X because he felt that yada yada yada" is not a POV, but rather the recounting of an event in Gibraltar's recent history. The Spanish/UN's stance on the matter is thus rendered extraneous here; in fact, its inclusion would constitute a POV imbalance.

In any case, I'd ask you politely to refrain from reverting again until we have achieved consensus. Thanks, RedCoat10 (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

:-) I could ask for the other way around (let's keep the original edition until consensus on removing it is achieved), but let's work that way. The key issue here is that including only the official statement of the Gibraltar government is imbalanced by nature. Let's me explain. If someone is attending a trial, a special hearing on a matter he's involved, it's important not only to know what one of the parties said, but also the reactions of the other parties involved (and what's more, the reaction of the judge or the committee). Mind that the example you've provided is not accurate. It's not "Mr Caruana did this in the year X because he felt that yada yada yada", but "Mr Caruana did this in the year X in the special committee on the status of Gibraltar because he felt that yada yada yada" (that is, the important point here is the obvious multiparty nature forum where he did his speech). Therefore, knowing whether Caruana's exhortation was successful or not is important. That is, even if the Spain's opinion could be regarded as irrelevant (something that is obviously false for me since, whether Gibraltarians like it or not, the fact nowadays is that the international status of Gibraltar depend on, at least formally, it may change in the future, conversations between the UK and Spain) the reaction of the committee isn't (otherwise, we're just including propaganda). In fact, if the reactions of the rest of parties are not included, the inclusion of the whole paragraph should be questioned --Ecemaml (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC) PS: BTW, not only the Williams, but also the Hills book arrived today, so that if further references or quotes are needed I can gladly provide them (regardless of the "orientation" of Hills book, the good point is that it includes plenty of references)

Before reading that I removed the reference to decolonisation. The significant milestone is that the Government of Gibraltar no longer recognises that there is any point in attending the C24.

You clearly do not appreciate the basis that people make submissions to the C24 is that any organisation that applies can get 10 mins, if we formed an association of Wikipedeia editors we could both make a presentation. Its all quite unimportant nonsense.

HMG is on the record that there will be no further talks between them and Spain on the sovereignty of Gibraltar without the consent of the people of Gibraltar and that is not forthcoming. The ambassador can say what he likes and stamp his feet, but its got nothing to do with the history of Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That's just proving my point, Ecemaml. :) We are not supposed to be discussing what went on in the UN Committee of 24, or what Tom, Dick and Harry thought of it, irrespective of where it was held. What we have is a simple statement that the GoG decided to abstain from attending because of they felt it unnecessary. Since this article is not one about Gibraltar's foreign affairs or Gibraltar's decolonisation, it would inappropriate if we were to include such material. RedCoat10 (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi RedCoad, as you can verify, we've been talking about the relevance of including the oppinion of the Spanish representative. Although I don't aggree with you, I've accepted its removal. However, none of you have provided an argument on the irrelevance of including the reaction of the Committee (the one Caruana addressed). However, Gibnews goes on removing such information on the grounds on Improve English. I'm waiting for your warning on him. --Ecemaml (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

How about we remove it altogether and thereby avoid all the disagreements that come with it? As Gibmetal77 noted, the whole event is rather inconsequential and didn't cause much of a stir with the Committee. I am sure there have been more noteworthy events regarding Gibraltar's decolonisation than this particular affair. What say you? RedCoat10 (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the first time the GoG formally asks in the United Nations to be removed from the list of non-dependent territories on the grounds of the nature of the new constitution. I think that's is really significant, even if the claim was not accepted. --Ecemaml (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC) PS: BTW goes on removing the reaction of the committee. This time, fortunately, without cheating as the previous one, but with the usual personal attack.

I shall correct you because you are wrong;

• The Government of Gibraltar has not asked the UN C24 to remove Gibraltaar from the list of non-self Governing territories.

• As it has not requested that its absurd to say the request had been denied

You can read the Chief Ministers speech Here

Accusing me of 'cheating' sounds very much like a personal attack, please do not confuse me with user:gibraltarian. Bull fighting tactics will not work. However returning to the article the ONLY significant thing to come out of the meeting is that the CM has thanked the committee and declined to attend future sessions as they seem to be pointless. If you read the proceedings over the last ten years its a reasonable conclusion to come to. The UN still refers to bi-lateral talks (Brussels Agreement) which the UK has stated as a matter of policy it will not attend, and that all future talks will be under the Trilateral process (Cordoba style) Trilateral means that all parties to discussions have equal standing. It is not a case of Britain and Spain discussing Gibraltar in the presence of a representative of the town council.

The next thing of note to happen is the opening of the Cervantes Institute. --Gibnews (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Proceedings at the UN

Whatever the Spanish observer at the C24 of the UN happens to think or say is immaterial to History of Gibraltar and the reference given referred only to the statements made by Peter Caruana and Joe Bossano.

This is not the Spanish Wikipedia where an editor can enforce the totally incorrect view that the territory of the airport is run by HMG and is not an integral part of Gibraltar.

The views of a Spanish representative may be appropriate on a page about the outdated territorial claim but has no significance in terms of the History of Gibraltar and more than the views of some that the earth is flat.

--Gibnews (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

That's your point of view. I don't know whether the territorial claim is outdated or not. I don't care and the role of wikipedia is not supporting or denying any claim. However, besides your rudeness (including a POV cannot be qualified as a "racist" edition, a word Gibraltarian was very fond of) the fact that there is a relevant POV you want to remove remains. BTW the reference given (have you read it?) includes the Spanish reactions, so that, besides removing a POV you don't even read the provided references. --Ecemaml (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat, the article is The History of Gibaltar that the chief minister decides not to attend future meetings of the UN C24 is appropriate to the history. The rest is not, although it might form part of the article on the sovereignty dispute. Why the Spanish ambassador clings to a position on bi-lateral talks which HMG has clearly stated is not an option is a matter for Spanish foreign policy and not the history of Gibraltar of which IT FORMS NO PART.

You may feel that what Spain thinks is important, it is not. --Gibnews (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Gibnews, take a look at Wikipedia:Civility and stop shouting. It would be useful not only for you, but also for all Gibraltar-related articles. Also How to win an argument can be interesting, especially the paragraph that states:

Do not water down your language. Using words like "I think" and "in my opinion" water down the effect of your argument. You must state, unequivocally, that your position is the only reasonable one.

Definitely I prefer to talk to other more sensible guys. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume that the same rules apply to the Spanish Wikipedia where you suppress the truth about the Isthmus being an integral part of Gibraltar because it favours the Spanish POV ? --Gibnews (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You can assume whatever you want. I've just asked for you to be just a little bit polite and not behaving as a hooligan. You can provide the diffs where I've said that your editions or whichever are "racist comments", or where I've removed a given POV (the claim over the isthmus is totally different from that of the rest of Gibraltar and even the UK government states that its right of sovereignty is of a different nature -alleged uncontested possession for a long time; so that saying that the isthmus is an integral part of Gibraltar is, again, a POV). Please, read meta:Megalomaniacal point of view, especially the sentence that read MPOV is characterized not by a belief that your own personal viewpoints are correct and thus must be represented in Wikipedia but rather by the belief that your own personal viewpoints are neutral (replace you with Gibraltar and you'll see the usual position on, for example, the isthmus. Et voilà, you have your pure MPOV statement: the truth about the Isthmus being an integral part of Gibraltar. That's the problem and only when you acknowledge that your point of view must be included but other relevant points of view must be also included, the problems will end. It's up to you. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The more I read the last entry in the timeline the more I believe that it has no place in this article as it is merely a statement made by the CM. Although don't get me wrong, it is important to include it in Disputed status of Gibraltar and Politics of Gibraltar, but not here. That's my view anyway. --Gibmetal 77^talk 14:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I've said previously, possibly you're right. For me, it seems important to note that the formal Gibraltar claims to be delisted from the list of non self-governing territories at the UN has not been considered by the Decolonization Committee. Maybe a redaction on such a way could be more appropriate. --Ecemaml (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly no point in including the opinion of a foreign ambassador who has never set foot in the territory. --Gibnews (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It's funny. If an alien read your statement, it would think your talking about the Siam ambassador and not the one of the only country that can allow the independence of Gibraltar. However, you go on with your mantra You must state, unequivocally, that your position is the only reasonable one. Cheers --Ecemaml (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

When your ambassador supports the independence of Gibraltar instead of Annexation add it to the article on Spain. The opinion of the man from The Kingdom of Thailand to use its correct title, is equally important. --Gibnews (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, tell it to the United Nations. You'll hear them laughing for years. --Ecemaml (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC) PD: and please, stop cheating with your edit summaries. Don't talk about redaction issues when removing information.

Not as much as the Gibraltarians laugh at the joke about the 'only country that can allow the independence of Gibraltar'. But this is not a place for silly jokes and posturing. The purpose of this page is to discuss items for inclusion about the HISTORY OF GIBRALTAR. The Spanish involvement ended in 1704 as a result of the British conquest. Independence is not within the gift of Spain. Like Las Vegas, what happens in Spain stays in Spain, and Gibraltar is not Spain. --Gibnews (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you know the meaning of "wishful thinking"? I don't think so. The UK Government on Gibraltar independence:

It is the position of Her Majesty's Government that [..] independence [of Gibraltar] would only be an option for Gibraltar with Spain's consent. (they don't seem to allow a similar right to the Kingdom of Thailand)

You can find the source if you want. And no, the Spanish involvement on the history of Gibraltar did not end in 1704 (sieges, embargoes, United Nations claim, the UK government justifying to Spain every time the Constitution changes...). And that's not because I say it, but because United Nations says that, the UK government says that, every historian that has dealt with the history of Gibraltar uses more than half of the text to talk about the "influence" of Spain in the history of Gibraltar (take William's work if you want)... So the POV you want to promote (the usual falacy of this: "what happens in Spain stays in Spain, and Gibraltar is not Spain"... unfortunately, Gibraltar is not Spain, but what happens in Spain has a strong impact in Gibraltar) is just that, a POV, and therefore needs to be neutralized (and I'll attempt to do it). --Ecemaml (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to promote your POV that unfortunately, Gibraltar is not Spain Surely your time would be better spent improving the pages about Spain rather than vandalising pages about Gibraltar, changing words into bad English and copying content from other people's websites to create articles. I could ask user:gibraltarian to return. --Gibnews (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You can go on with your behavior. First, I was a racist. Now I vandalize. And finally, attempting to anonymously destroy other guys work seems very nasty (especially when, as it's the case, you're violating the British laws on copyrights... an agreement signed between UK and Spain officials is under Crown Copyright, and the Government of Gibraltar has no power to break the law). Finally, sorry for my English. It's a pity that neutralizing "your" articles make you get nervous. As long as you don't want to show the Spain's POV I'll go on, with my poor English, including it, whether you like it or not. And thank you by recognizing that you have something to do with Gibraltarian. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC) PS: finally, partially quoting a sentence is usually called... manipulation? The sentence was, as it can be seen unfortunately, Gibraltar is not Spain, but what happens in Spain has a strong impact in Gibraltar.

I see you are now turning editing wikipedia into a personal crusade, which is a pity because its about producing an encyclopedia.

• You seemed determined to remove the existing link to the Lisbon agreement, and simply copied and pasted the content to Wikisource. That is against the rules.

• You are alleging that the articles here are mine they are not, they represent the collective work of a number of editors, yourself included, however pushing an unreasonable Spanish POV or indeed excessive unrelated foreign content which has no significance to Gibraltar is not appropriate.

• The user you set up and had banned Gibraltarian claimed you are a racist amongst other things as that was his interpretation of your aggressive and bad behaviour which seems to have resurfaced since Iberia have abandoned their flights to Gibraltar.

• For the record I am not that user, nor do I even know his name.

• Deleting content because you do not like it, and making personal attacks is abusive behaviour and if you continue down this road, it will result in a complaint.

• Where your use of language is wrong. I have corrected it and will continue to do so because this is the ENGLISH wikipedia. Feel free to correct my Spanish as my use of foreign languages is poor.

In the past you have been more reasonable than of late, and I urge you to step back and look at things objectively - since the Government of Spain decided that it had treat the Government of Gibraltar as an equal in talks under the Cordoba agreement, relations have improved because they demonstrated respect instead of pushing the tired old Castiella proposals, and stopped shouting Gibraltar espanol at people who do not want to hear that.

Gibraltar repeatedly states it wants good neighbourly relations, this needs to be reciprocated and not aggravated.

In relation to the UNC24 if you read the record of the committee over the last 20 years nothing of any substance has been achieved and nothing will be for as long as they will not even visit the territory. The meetings are all the same and quite pointless for all concerned.

--Gibnews (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that you go on using personal arguments attempting to discredit me instead of providing arguments that comply with verifiability, reliable sources and neutral point of view policies. It's up to you. Please, read WP:CIVIL.

• The history of the article seems clearly that it was me the one that introduced the mention to the Lisbon Agreement and the one that attempted to introduce a link to wikisource including the text of the Lisbon Agreement. I did actually copied and pasted a content that is either in the public domain or under Crown Copyright, just in the same way as you did, so you can give up talking about ethics. BTW, I'm quoting what you've been said in wikisource: Frankly, as someone who has spent thousands of hours and quite a bit of money to make fully transcribed works available clearly labeled as public domain, I resent someone with an agenda of preventing the distribution of public domain work as such.

• I've been told Surely your time would be better spent improving the pages about Spain rather than vandalizing pages about Gibraltar. Your statement is a) an invitation to give up editing in the articles the articles you decide I have to. Sorry to inform that you're not the watchdog of the articles so that you're not qualified to ask me to stop editing in wikipedia in whatever article I wish; b) you've accused me of "vandalizing" when none of my editions, ever, can be qualified as vandalic (please, read carefully Wikipedia:Vandalism to understand what vandalism is); however, editions such as this, where you remove a sourced POV, correctly attributed, on the grounds of "improving English" are much closer to a vandalic behaviour.
  
  On the other hand, you say you're not the owner of the article and, at the same time, you talk about "an unreasonable Spanish POV or indeed excessive unrelated foreign content which has no significance to Gibraltar". Who decides that? You? Your friend the former Chief Minister of Gibraltar? The key point of this discussion is that you strongly believe that you are the one who decides what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. Obviously, given your obvious conflict of interest such a claim is simply POV-warrioring.

• "The user you set up and had banned Gibraltarian" was actually banned by the Arbitration Committee and you know that. He used to call me racist, and curiously, unfair racism accusations are one of your preferred "arguments". See here or here.

• You've been the one that has threaten me with the comeback of Gibraltarian (here are your words: I could ask user:gibraltarian to return). Regardless of Gibraltarian being you or not, your words have a simple meaning and it is harassment. I'll open an incident about your threads.

• Yes, please, show a diff where I delete content without providing a proper reason or source (I don't do it like you) or showing a personal attack.

• Thank you for correcting my English. It's actually poor. But it has nothing to do with the actual content of the articles. Using my lack of fluency with the language to make me stop contributing is just another proof of your wish to see me out of "your" articles.

• In the past I've been reasonable. Now I'm also reasonable. Again, it's not you the one that define what objectivity is and what's not. And what's more, you're again lying talking about me shouting "Gibratar español" (again you old tactics meaning that I've said something I didn't actually say). Can you provide a (not mutilated) diff?

• What Gibraltar (and BTW Spain) wants is irrelevant. We're here to produce an encyclopedia, not to play the Governments game. I do not have anything to do with any government, political party or whatever. However, I know very well the WP policies and have much more books and information than you (or at least the one you show). If you want your editions to be some sort of extension of the Gibraltar government policies and propaganda, feel free (as long as you present the Gibraltar POV as what is, a POV), but let the rest of people produce an encyclopedia complying with the NPV policy.

• I don't have anything to assess regarding what the UN says or not. It's not our role. We're not a primary source. We don't decide whether the international politics are fair or not. The fact here is that the UN doctrine on Gibraltar exists. And our responsibility is simply showing it, not dismissing it just because you and your friends think it's not reasonable (if the Gibraltar politicians think the UN doctrine is pointless, what wikipedia must say is "Gibraltar politicians think the UN doctrine is pointless", not using such POV as the basis to decide what must be included and what not). This is wikipedia and all relevant points of view must be fairly represented, not only the ones you decide. If you don't want to understand it, it's possibly your problem, not mine.

--Ecemaml (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you do not deny you copied and pasted an article from my website to wikisource contrary to the rules --Gibnews (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you do not deny you have close ties to a former Chief Minister of Gibraltar (maybe Joe Bossano?). Have you read ever this: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? (BTW, it seems quite odd your insistence on promoting your web instead of putting the interesting material you have in its proper wikipedia place: wikisource, especially when it comes to the fact that all the material is in the public domain... see Wikipedia:Spam) And by the way, claiming copyright on a text that is either on the public domain or under Crown Copyright seems... I can't find the word in English... let's say unfair (BTW again, don't worry, I've found another sources to get the text you claim copyright on). Fortunately, I see that you've denied your threads, your harassment... Fine. --Ecemaml (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW: Hi, Gibnews: Regarding copyright (and your apparent claim of it, please don't be offended if I misunderstood your mention of EU intellectual property acts), unless you are a) the original copyright holder of the document, or b) performed the translation yourself (which, unless the initial document was public domain, would make it a derivative work, and would fall under the same copyright as a)), you cannot claim copyright to it. Sorry --Ecemaml (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stay on topic! Wikisource discussions should stay in Wikisource. This page is for discussing improvements to the History of Gibraltar article in accordance with WP:TPG. If you have a grievance with Gibnews, please remain calm and discuss it elsewhere. Thanks, RedCoat10 (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

RedCoad, including a link to the Lisbon Agreement text hosted in wikisource from this article is an improvement. Attempting to prevent me from doing it on the grounds of an anonymous report about an inexistent copyright violation is, I should say, bad faith. I also remember that Gibnews has threaten me with asking Gibraltarian to return... It's strange that such kind of out-of-topic issues are not equally warned. But you're right in a point: this should be talked about elsewhere. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I note the wording at the bottom of this page is Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted. are you denying that was what you did ? --Gibnews (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys, RedCoat10 is right. You should be discussing this over at Wikisource. --Gibmetal 77^talk 19:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Latest Changes?

Is the title of Wikisource articles being changed? Justin talk 22:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

There is a post linked to this article on the NPOV noticeboard. Justin talk 00:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

United Nations

There is a section in the article about the Politics of Gibraltar which goes into detail about the United Nations, as the detail is of a political nature. The history of Gibraltar does not need to mention the details of what happened at the UN as that is not in Gibraltar.

Please refrain from blindly edit warring on this and at least have the courtesy to discuss this and obtain a consensus, you are NOT the official historian for Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

a) You haven't had the courtesy of discussing your changes and obtaining a consensus before making your changes. That's the way it works, especially considering that such text has been there for years.

b) Gibraltar was a colony.

c) Gibraltar was (and is) subject to a decolonization process in the United Nations. Therefore, your statement The history of Gibraltar does not need to mention the details of what happened at the UN as that is not in Gibraltar is as pointless as not mentioning the Yalta agreements in the history of the United Kingdom as Yalta (or Tehran) aren't in the UK.

--Ecemaml (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Please step back from this, take a deep breath and CALM down. Edit warring is bad. You have included a large chunk in the history of Gibraltar about what Spain did at the UN. The article has by its nature got to be CONCISE as a lot happens in and related to Gibraltar every year, enough to fill a Wiki on its own so the history page is a summary.

I relocated a large chunk of the text, including references and resolutions to the section in the article about the politics of Gibraltar, where this stuff belongs and were people interested in it can find it.

If there is anything else to do please DISCUSS it here. Do add edit summaries suggesting there is some grand alliance between me and others to frustrate your ownership of Wikipedia articles about Gibraltar, please assume good faith. --Gibnews (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And as a self-governing territory Gibraltar has effectively been colonised, perhaps we could include some details about that. Justin talk 22:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the United Nations don't think the same... but, of course, what they say is rubbish and bla, bla, bla... Obviously, such a statement is a respectable POV, but nowadays a POV. --Ecemaml (talk) 22:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I had in mind an edit discussing the machinations of the UN that allows it to ignore the views of the people that it is supposedly decolonising. I.e. why doesn't the UN think the same, if the people of Gibraltar have overwhelmingly endorsed the status quo in a referendum that was described by outside observers as the epitome of democracy? Justin talk 23:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting POV (I should say that I sincerely agree with the Gibraltarian point of view about the UN decolonization process). Unfortunately, POVs shouldn't be administered depending on how good or bad we think they are. That's something that, as I go deeper in Gibraltar-related issues I verify that is deeply misunderstood.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecemaml (talk • contribs) October 20, 2008

Edit-warring

Edit warring isn't going to get us anywhere and isn't conducive to reaching a consensus. I suggest we avoid implementing any further changes until there is consensus to do so. I've removed the material regarding Spain at the UN after having realised that it was originally added, or rather rewritten, on the 16 September without consensus.[1] There is obviously little consensus for its inclusion and any further attempts at reinstating it may well be perceived as disruptive. --RedCoat10 • talk 15:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that and have reverted the article to the above state, excepting I have included the templates, although there presence needs some justification; I looked for it and found none so assumed they were part of an old dispute. --Gibnews (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Submarines in Rota

The article, when speaking about HMS Tireless issue, states: "The Government of Gibraltar has accused Spain of using this incident as an excuse to go on creating a dispute over Gibraltar, since there are more severe environmental problems in the Bay[41] and American nuclear vessels regularly visit and are possibly repaired in Rota, Cádiz without any complaint".

Now that's a personal opinion, not backed with any proof. The nuclear submarine HMS Tireless was repaired in Gibraltar [the cooling system, nothing less]. That's a fact. Spanish officials complained. That's a fact. American nuclear vessels possibly repaired in Rota. That's an excuse written in an encyclopedia without providing further evidence. The burden of proof is up to you, and I'd really like to know what are exactly doing the american nuclear vessels in Spain, as I would complain as well if they repair'em in Rota instead of doing it in the U.S.

Please, correct it or I will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.53.209 (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, that sounds suspiciously like a threat, way to go for achieving consensus. Justin talk 15:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody likes threats, but the best way to evade consensus is by not reading an argument and focusing in it's last words instead. What do you think about whats been said above?