Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:35, 5 March 2010

Archive 1 June 2006-Dec 2009

Gibraltar RFC

Was your comment a response to mine? I don't see the relevance to my oppose. Justin talk 08:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, another editor seems to think that a historical fact is relevant to certain modern claims. I don't think so, I just think the fact is notable enough for inclusion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

OK fair enough, you might want to make that clear by moving it then. Justin talk 10:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a weak preference for leaving it where it is. But feel free to move it if you like. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As you've had a response I won't. Just out of curiousity what kind of bows do you make? Justin talk 10:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Self bows mostly, from local white woods, here's a picture of one.

I'm collecting materials for my first composite bow though. Are you an archer? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Used to be before marriage and offspring but sadly I find little time for it these days. My main interest is muzzle loading infantry rifles. Justin talk 11:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Gib

Hi Richard,

In the first place, thank you very much for making the effort of helping us out in the Gib article. Any outside help is wonderful (we get so tangled, I guess one thinks twice before getting in the middle of the crossfire ;) ). I am posting in your page to point out that, if you look carefully in the middle of the Pro-Inclusion arguments discussion (a bit of a mess, I'm afraid, that's why I thought this post might be helpful), you can find a couple of additional suggestions that I have made -and for which I've tried to find some empirical support)here and here. If you look at the discussion, you will see that my arguments have been answered, (I don't wanna hide it) but I would be very grateful if you took a look at them and included them in the list. Thanks again. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Marble Hill

Hi Richard, I see you like your RFC discussions - you're a brave man!

I'm still of the opinion that including the claim gives it undeserved credibility, and that was also the opinion of at least two other editors who no longer seem to be participating in the discussion (Talk:Marble_Hill,_South_Australia#Recap). I know this is already at RFC, but I found it difficult to understand the question as it was phrased (even being familiar with the dispute!) and am not surprised there has not been a widespread response to it. Would you be prepared to take it to RFC again once the current one expires, phrased from an outsider's perspective? I'd do it myself but I'd rather make this as objective as possible. This issue has filled up enough talk page bandwidth.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy enough to do so. I'm not sure if it will help much, but RfCs are often interesting. I've spent some time doing Wikignome-type improvements to articles, but now I'm expressing my support for Misplaced Pages in some new ways. One is by trying to achieve consensus in a few RfCs where I feel I have sufficient understanding to do so.

In this particular case talk page bandwidth is cheap enough and may be the best solution to the main problem. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Unlawful land grab

Thanks YH for your expressed continued Anglo-British-United Kingdom Caucasian v Kaurna cross-cultural logic bias excluding any Pre-eminent enduring Sovereign Dominion pre-1836. If as you say Richard, that the "Marble Hill, South Australia" Article is only about the "building", why is there then so much by YH about the Governors or so much else? Where then is the Misplaced Pages Article for the Marble Hill area like there now thanks to YH is for Cherryville or the rest of the Marble Hill 22Ha property? Remembering that there was a relatively recent land subdivision started by our former DEC Minister Hon John Hill MP Kaurna & finished by Hon Gail Gago MLC leading to the recent sale of the 22Ha by our current South Australian Government Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation & Department of Environment and Conservation Minister Hon Jay Weatherill MP Cheltenham (NOTE: the "con" in both Reconciliation and Conservation) for a mere $819 000 shortly after selling more Kaurna-Ramindjeri Yerta at Oaklands Estate Reserve to Marion City Council for a mere $2.00. The "building" as you say is mostly a bushfired ruin back to the Kaurna Yerta sandstone rocks from whence it was built. Sadly I continue to fail to fully comprehend your assumptive logic lacking in shared established international standard qualified geographic and historic premises. Especially now late yesterday afternoon that Lawyer Editor Shaun Berg has now book launched by former Australian High Court Justice Hon Michael Kirby "Coming to Terms" on King William IV South Australia Letters Patent 19 Feb 1836. Thus I now submit ETYMOLOGY OF KAURNA PLACENAMES by Dr Robert Amery in particular I now refer you both to the "REFERENCES" and contextually to "Gumeracha" ngarrumuka (brain), "Uraidla" yurridla (ears) & "Piccadilly" pikodla (eyebrows) "Much of this material has been collated and published in several popular books on South Australian placenames, notably Praite and Tolley (1970, Manning (1986) and Cockburn (1908; 1984; 1990)" Mifren (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is, as you say, about the building. And the people who lived in it. And, I am arguing, brief referenced comments about land claims to the site, which the present version seems to cover quite adequately, possibly more than adequately. Mifren, to reiterate, we are discussing an encyclopedic article about a mildly-notable building, not a history of land grabs and claims. Your material above simply does not belong in this article, though if you can find well-referenced stuff from good secondary sources it might find a home elsewhere in Misplaced Pages. While we're at it, I'd prefer to keep most of this debate on the talk page of Marble Hill. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply

Hello and Happy New Year,

I hope that you have had a chance to celebrate (and the patient is all well now). I have been a bit away for the last few days (closing the year and on vacation), so I didn't get to see your summary in the Gibraltar article until recently. You can see my comment on your pro-inclusion arguments summary here. Could you take a look and decide whether to take it into account?

BTW, looking at your contribs (in order to see if you were available these days) I have seen that you are interested in Gibbon's Decline and Fall. I am in love with that book (the style, the witty comments, the history...) Are you interested in the book? or the period in general? I have also recently read another book about the same issue, a bit more technical (but very very interesting for an aficionado): Bryan Ward-Perkins's The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization (2005), which makes a pretty interesting and practical explanation about the decline of Rome. BTW, in that book he makes the peculiar comment that "north Wales can lay claim to being the very last part of the Roman empire to fall to the barbarians" (in 1282!).

Thank you! --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I will rewrite as you suggest, and the time may have come to give my opinions on which arguments are actually relevant to the task of writing a good encyclopedic article.

Yes, Gibbon is a wonderful writer and historian. I have a longstanding interest in Roman history as well. I am amused by the thought that after Honorius wrote to the British civitates in 410, telling them to look to their own defence, they and their legitimate successors could indeed claim to be part of the Roman Empire. At your recommendation I might buy a copy of Bryan Ward-Perkins' book. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar / San Roque

I have amended the wording slightly of the sentence describing San Roque, please alter your vote accordingly if you do not agree with the revised edition. It won't be altered again, but on reflection there is no evidence for the word majority. --Gibnews (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You really are not helping by introducing another variation when we are actually close to an agreement. --Gibnews (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A variation that is more defensible and irritates fewer people may turn out to be useful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well there was a sufficient consensus on my version to go with it, There is no evidence that the Spaniards were threatened in any way, simply that they were beaten in warfare, chose to run away, and were allowed to do so despite committing murders after agreeing to the cease fire. This is just playing to the 'real Gibraltar in San Roque' nonsense. I was trying to put the fire out, it will now continue for another 50k. --Gibnews (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we have now had the 50k of waffle, I've made a proposal, including your correction of my typo - I changed 'majority' to 'many' and did not notice the the. Rather than me change the article, if you agree and there is no major reason not to, I've suggested you actually apply it in order to avoid an edit war or to seem I am pushing my wording unfairly. we can then move on to greater things, like understanding digital tv streams and determining why my DVB-T transmitter does not work which is more appropriate to 2010. --Gibnews (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Although I think that 'peacefully' expresses it better, 'without further violence' applies equally to both sides. I suggest you apply the change, and archive the discussions and we move on. However, no doubt there will be another dispute upcoming. Strangely enough in the period prior to Franco there was peace and understanding between Gibraltar and Spain. Then as now Gibraltar contributed to the well being of the Campo area, just now they are ungrateful about it. --Gibnews (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Annoyed

Actually more than annoyed, seriously pissed off. First of all you assert that my opposition to mention of San Roque is rooted in a dislike of Spanish nationalism, when it isn't. Now today apparently I "object to any mention of San Roque on grounds which I find not relevant to Misplaced Pages". Sorry but thats bullshit and has never ever been the case. I've consistently argued that its a minor detail relevant to the history article and not to an overview. I have from Day 1 agreed that it is worth mentioning in the right context. I am fed up my comments deliberately being miscrepresented by the likes of Imalbornoz and I really did not expect you to do the same. Those comments are out of order.

The only reason that Spanish nationalism ever got mentioned is that Imalbornoz frequently claims he doesn't support it, yet advances the same arguments all the time. Some of his comments off-wiki are also very offensive in that respect. Justin talk 13:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

JzG

I can't see JzG being a great deal of help, seeing as he managed to wade in without understanding and make things worse. Atama has been more instrumental in mediating matters. It might have been courtesy to have invited him. Justin talk 13:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I shall, and possibly others who have shown recent interest. Feel free to do the same. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Roman departure from Britain

I agree with the move that you made, but those types of major consensus changes should probably be allowed to sit on the talk page of an article for a day or two. This allows users to actually comment on it if they aren't constantly on Misplaced Pages. Good edit though, Sadads (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks, comment appreciated and digested. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

extremely annoying stubborn gits

I see, "neutral arbiters" shouldn't take sides, nor should they make obnoxious remarks on Mercopress. Particularly when they express views that are far, far from neutral. Don't give up the day job and I suggest you stop following me around. Justin talk 17:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Mercopress? Never heard of it before tonight. Do you think I've been cyberstalking you there? Or am I incorrectly taking a general reference as applying to me, in which case I apologise? Perhaps I should remember that irony and missing referents are useful and sophisticated uses of language, allowing as they do a sympathetic, but otherwise ambiguous response to self-deprecatory comments? Perhaps, and I suggest this tentatively, we both should? Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

, if that isn't you from Feb 5, then I apologise. Seems someone was shit stirring. That was the only reason I took offence, being in the possession of a sense of humour. Yes it appeared I was being stalked, seems I probably was but not by you. Again my apologies. Justin talk 19:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Definitely another Richard. Seems like a bit of a git. I can hope that he's using someone else's name. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh I have a good idea which of our mutual acquaintances it was. Justin talk 20:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

/Gibraltar

AGF/RS

Hi Richard. Posting here because I've said enough at RS for now. The editor who distinguishes AGF editors vs sources is right. This is a site operated by Gibnews, even if he is archiving content that was not authored by him. The same stringent standards Misplaced Pages seeks in its sources as those which academia seeks should not be lowered simply because it's a fellow editor who owns the source. If anything, the standards should be even higher because of the potential conflict of interest. I'm sure, as a prescriber of medications sold by for-profit pharmaceutical companies, you will understand that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 14:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that to get stuff onto gibnews.net you have to sign up, and pay a fee, and you can only do it if they find you're a reputable organization. Some bodies use it as a main outlet for their releases. This is as far as you can get from some fly-by-night blog operated by a lone loony.

If that's correct, there is a strong argument for regarding their stuff as, at least, a good primary source for the organisations that put it up. I'd like to see evidence that it is correct, and that shouldn't be too hard for Gibnews to provide. I agree that there is an element of risk with an software manager who might potentially abuse whatever power he might have over a news source, but in this case I would be inclined to believe Gibnews when he says that he doesn't edit the stuff. I'd be surprised if he could without being caught out. I've asked for specific third-party evidence but in the meantime I am inclined to trust what Gibnews says about gibnews.net. HTH. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I also have major concerns about his judgement wrt sources. Whenever publications by the BBC, CIA, Britannica, the FCO, the EU disagree with him he denounces them as factually inaccurate or out of date or both. I'm serious, he has rubbished all those and more. Even the Govt of Gib itself. Sheesh, you would not believe some of the conversations I've had with him about sourcing for the article over the last few years. (FYI I'm a middle aged Cambridge graduate, not some nincompoop). The mind boggles how he defends this source to the death yet pooh poohs what noone would deny is a RS. The only explanation is that it is HIS site and he likes cherry picking from it to advance his sometimes reasonable but sometimes utterly bizarre and misinformed views. eg on what kind of currency the Gibraltar Pound is. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 21:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A further thought - if indeed these organisations must pay a fee as you are suggesting then that makes the situation even worse. That would mean Gibnews is receiving monetary compensation for posting material online which he is then attempting to link to (AKA advertise) on Misplaced Pages. See Source soliciting The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 23:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I share doubts about Gibnews' judgement at times, but that doesn't invalidate the use of a Web gateway for reputable organizations as a reputable primary source for those organizations. This needs to be taken on its own merits. What evidence about the transparency of gibnews.net, and Gibnews' lack of editorial control, would allay your fears?

Which college by the way? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Pembroke 1975-9

The only thing which would really satisfy me would be if the reputable organisations concerned gave their seal of approval to the site. For example, if the GoG said "archived press releases can be found at....".

That would certainly be good, I hope that Gibnews can provide it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

College? I'm a bit uneasy about posting info that can ID oneself in this day and age of permanent online archiving but if it were a crossword puzzle, the clue might be "metal, jangly, kept in one's trouser pockets", and datewise, I don't wish to make you feel too old but you had been gone a good few years after I got there;-). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 13:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No overlap. I don't even recall any acquaintances from your admirable college. Oh well. I'll creep off to my coffin then. Personally I've more or less given up trying to maintain anonymity, I just keep passwords and bank details very secret, and try not to write anything that would be embarrassing if read out in court. Or would expose me to violent nutcases, more than I am already. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Self Governing

It must be the effect of St Valentine, but RH and myself have agreed with each other twice. See the talk page; apply your changes as amended quick, then archive the talk page and hope ww3 does not break out. Justin is having a wikibreak and others a siesta. The wording is fair, so lets go for it. --Gibnews (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar wording

Personally I think there should be a short reference to Gibraltar being internally self governing in the lead, because it is something that is manifestly true and is often asserted not to be the case.

For the politics section perhaps you could work in some of this, with the existing references.

Under the 2006 Constitution Gibraltar is internally self-governing with an elected parliament comprising eight Government ministers and seven opposition members. The Governor represents the HM the Queen as head of State and is responsible for appointments made on her behalf in consultation with the head of the elected government. The UK is responsible for defence and foreign relations, apart from those with Spain where there is a trilateral process of talks in which Gibraltar has equal representation.

--Gibnews (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your blue helmet act

Thank you indeed for the mediation. It surely was not easy to act as the blue helmet in the middle of the crossfire. About Perkin's book, I am very glad that you read it and liked it. I agree that it makes a lot of sense. BTW, I am sure I have very unfriendly ancestors too (quite a motley mix, actually: all kinds of barbarians, Iberians, Celtics, Arabs, Jews...); in fact, I'm pretty sure we all do (I mean, have ancestors much more unfriendly than most of us are): that, and more trivial things -like mediators in WP-, makes me keep my faith in humankind and -to keep the topic ;)- in the progression of civilization, at least in the very long term. --Imalbornoz (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Patronising

And being patronising is? So even handed of you, as always. Justin talk 18:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Partial strike through of comment, unfair of me to have made it and for that I apologise. Justin talk 21:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't deal with it any more

I'm taking the page off my watchlist. If you stay, feel free to use my name in support of the SR wording (note I provided a couple of travel books too which support it) and if there are any "polls" which need voting in, let me know. Good luck! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 11:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to lose you from this particular project, though I understand your frustration only too well. Thanks, and I wish you happier editing in future. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

TPG

You might want to read WP:TPG about moving talk pages around. Justin talk 10:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I did. Layout and sectioning. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A point to p0nder

Really? J'acccuse. Well not really but you might want to ponder that lumping everyone into the same camp of narrow nationalism, whilst it may be a convenient excuse to stop listening and ignore what they have to say, may not ring true. And the more you unfairly do so, the more vociferously and vigorously they will protest about it. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 09:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom case

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Gibraltar and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, EyeSerene 13:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)