Talk:Gibraltar/Archive 12

Archive

The talk page was getting very long, so I have archived it. Pfainuk talk 10:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Question of Gibraltar" and blanket reverting

Regarding my edit:

• regardless of what anyone thinks of the other issue, blanket reverting is not good. If you disagree with one change, don't remove the other. If you disagree with both, argue for both, not just one.
• regarding the term "Question of Gibraltar": there is no need for a disclaimer like "only the Spanish use it", as long as there is no indication that Gibraltarians or the British would call it by another term. In fact, they don't call it at all, considering it a non-issue. But non-issues do not create problems between Spain and Britain and these problems are the content of the sentence in question (i.e. without these, we wouldn't have that question). Gibraltarians are of course entitled to their opinion and their wish to retain the status quo. But for that we do not need such disclaimers. (And note, this situation is not unique - there have been countless "Questions of ..." (e.g. the "German Question", in which one side did not accept that there was a question - without WP using such disclaimers. No prejudicing this way or that way is intendend. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If the British and Gibraltarians do not call it the Question of Gibraltar, we should not imply that they do, as I believe your edit did. If it is only used by the Spanish, there seems little reason not to say that it is a Spanish term. Pfainuk talk 21:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The concept and term is considered HIGHLY OFFENSIVE in Gibraltar. Without wishing to get into a political argument its also a flawed assumption that we want to maintain a 'Status Quo' which is why there is a new 'non colonial' constitution now in place. --Gibnews (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The term "cuestión" is better translated from Spanish to English as "issue", not "question". I've edited it.

Its reported in the media as 'Question' so thats the way it is. --Gibnews (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

could we have more on the conflict

Or a good redirect to the arguments favouring British neo-colonialism and pro Spanish re-acquisition. Furthermore- should there be some discussion in light of the post 1955 UN position on Decolonization with special reference to the UK and Holland. BY which case, any "treaty of Perpetuity" rendered invalid and somewhat viewed ludicrous in view today's UN General Assembly and UN Conventions. I believe the UK under Raffles declared Billiton and Bantam Islands in my nation Indonesia for all perpetuity- but since we kicked the colonials out, they've not asked for it back in light of Raffles' claims. Thoughts? Opinions? Please excuse my English if it comes across burusque- it is not my native tongue.Starstylers (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What are suggesting exactly? I haven't a clue from that random discourse? If you're suggesting some sort of discussion on the merits of Spanish/Gibraltar/UK case? Thats not what Wikipedia is about. Justin talk 19:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not an article on the dispute, it is an article on Gibraltar. We do have an article on the disputed status of Gibraltar. Note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and its talk pages are not a discussion forum: please do not use the talk page to make comments not directly connected to the improvement of the article. Pfainuk talk 19:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"The British Period"

This heading doesn't make any sense. Firstly, Gibraltar is still British, the word "period" suggests that it was an era in history which is now over. Secondly, a cursory glance at the headings reinforces that notion because there are other headings at the same level for "World War II" and "Recent History": it implies that there was a British "period" between the "Spanish period" and "World War II". I moved the WW2 and recent history headings down a level, but I think that these headings should be reworded. Also, FYI, it is a contravention of the Manual of Style to begin a heading with "The". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Relevance of Polish general's death to history of Gibraltar

On another note, I predict that my other edit [1] may cause some issues with a certain editor. It was first added by an anon IP [2], Justin removed it as an "extraneous fact" (I 100% agree with Justin). Then Gibnews added it back [3] commenting "It is actually an important event". Well, it may have been for the Polish, but it's utterly irrelevant to the course of history of Gibraltar. It's just a piece of historical trivia and a matter of chance that his bomber crashed in or near Gibraltar. What if it had crashed on landing instead, in whatever country it was destined to fly to? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, removing important reference does 'cause a problem' perhaps you failed to read the item as the bomber took off from Gibraltar. The event was of enough significance that a memorial was erected and the inquiry into the circumstances was ongoing as of last year, including the theory that MI6 was involved. --Gibnews (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, this article is not a ragtag collection of "stuff that has happened in Gibraltar which I think is notable". It is an encyclopaedia. The history of Gibraltar was not altered by this death. People die. Accidents happen. Inquiries are held. That does not mean that the history of the country in which this happens is altered. If it had been the Governor or Chief Minister of Gibraltar who died while in office, now that would be relevant. But the head of the Polish Government in exile? How exactly did that alter Gibraltar's history? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It is generally regarded as a notable historical event which occurred in Gibraltar and is included as such. Congratulations on finding yet another topic to start an edit war about to waste more time. Why not spend some time adding content to Wikipedia instead of engaging in this nonsense? --Gibnews (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added content to Wikipedia. I wrote most of British Empire which is a featured article (unlike the collection of assorted trivia at Gibraltar). It is with that track record of writing a quality article - deemed, alongside the other featured articles to be Wikipedia's "very best" - that I am pointing out that inclusion of this information is wrong and lowers the quality of this article. If I am wrong, please explain why this is a notable historical event for Gibraltar, other than the fact that you think it is? Saying it is an important event does not make it so. And FYI it is hypocritical to ask someone to have the courtesy not to revert when you began the edit war. Instead of instantly reverting, you could have just made your case here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The item has been on the Gibraltar page for some time and removing it is simple vandalism; looking at your comments it seems you anticipated a dispute, in which case opening a discussion first would have been the polite thing to do unless its simply an excuse to start yet another edit war. --Gibnews (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

His death was a cause célèbre and remains a subject of controversy to this day, so much so that his body was recently exhumed in the hope of ruling out (or proving) foul play. While it's true that he may not have died in Gibraltar proper, his plane took off from Gibraltar's airport, crashing a mere sixteen seconds after take-off, and the immediate rescue operation was conducted by the Gibraltar authorities. Gibraltar too will have no doubt played a part in the official investigation. And significantly, his body lay in state in the Cathedral of St. Mary the Crowned and was later carried to the dockyard in a procession lined by British troops. If that's not an important part of Gibraltar's history then I don't know what is! --RedCoat10 • talk 19:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree and edit warring to remove it is out of order. Justin talk 20:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You have changed your mind then, Justin, as the first time you removed it yourself and labelled it "extraneous information". The history section of country articles is supposed to be a high level overview of events that shaped its history. It may very well be a subject of controversy, but that does not mean it must be mentioned. The assassination of JFK is a subject of controversy. That is a defining moment in American history and changed its course. It deserves mention in a section on the history of the USA. This matter is not a defining moment in the history of Gibraltar. Anyway I would be interested to know what the other regulars, Pfainuk and Narson think. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I have, when I removed it I didn't realise its significance but then someone was kind enough to explain it to me. Take 5 minutes and you will find it is a significant event. Justin talk 20:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been almost 24 hours now and I still don't see its significance in relation to the history of Gibraltar. On another note, how mysterious that a new user has decided to register and make his first edit the same reversion that Gibnews had already made twice that day. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The accidental death of a head of state is not an everyday occurrence, still less so when it remains in the public eye seventy years on. The fact that Gibraltar played a major role in an event of such proportions makes it important in relation to Gibraltar's history. If the criterion used is that the event must have shaped Gibraltar's history in some fashion, then one could argue Diana's honeymooning in Gibraltar ought to be removed too. Is there even such a criterion anyway? What ever happened to the whole Wiki is a paper encyclopedia... -- RedCoat10 • talk 22:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this honeymoon information should be removed too. It's just a diplomatic tussle, in the same vein as the kerfuffle over Princess Anne's visit [4]. These events are relevant to a section on the specifics of the relationship between Spain and Britain over the colony. Now, had such a visit caused something notable, such as a Spanish invasion, then it would of course merit a mention in the history of Gibraltar.

The problem is that this article is an indiscriminate collection of information, and it reads like one too. Another example: mentioning a film because a submarine in it went near Gibraltar. I mean, come on. In many parts the article is like a school class project, something you'd expect a bunch of 12 year olds to come up with. It could do with some outside opinion. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have posted requests for comment on the talk pages of the two other regulars, Pfainuk and Narson. I still strongly believe that the editors that have posted so far are confusing "significant" and "relevant to a summary history of Gibraltar". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Right.

A couple of minor quibbles with the above. General Sikorski was never Poland's head of state: the President of the Polish government-in-exile in 1943 was Władysław Raczkiewicz. Sikorski was a very significant figure in that government, but not technically its head of state. In the interests of NPOV, it's worth perhaps also noting that the Polish government-in-exile never actually held any territory following the German and Soviet invasions of Poland in 1939.

On a thread here last year, I argued - essentially - that to be included in this summary history, an event should have had a significant effect on Gibraltar (and specifically, the history of Gibraltar). I would expand this to suggest that even events of international importance that took place in Gibraltar should not necessarily be included here, unless there was a significant effect on Gibraltar itself. That would include political or infrastructural effects, as well as effects to Gibraltar's international profile (Yalta springs to mind as an example of the latter). Now, in most cases this is a non-issue: generally, if an event has international importance it will also have local effects. But not in all cases.

I think it's obvious that Sikorski's death is significant to Polish history and probably to WW2 history. But the current text, in my view, is insufficient to establish that Sikorski's death is significant in the context of a summary history of Gibraltar. The fact that it happened is not enough. Unless we can clearly explain in the article the consequences of Sikorski's death in the context of Gibraltar - that is, unless we can explain what significant effect Sikorski's death had on Gibraltar specifically - the reference should be removed IMO. Pfainuk talk 17:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagee it was a notable event that occured in/on Gibraltar, there is no requirement per se for it to have had an effect on Gibraltar. The fact that it was a notable event and occurred on Gib is sufficient. I would argue the same for say the "Shell station practical pistol exercise", which had little effect on Gib itself AFAIK but is important and happened there (see Military section).

I certainly wouldn't expand the section on the death here but it is worthwhile mentioning with the current degree of emphasis and from what Gibnews says above has been in for some time - I can't be bothered to check how long. Frankly I reckon your mate is just bored and wants an internet fight, this certainly is what I infer from his comments and uncalled for reversions to my edits elsewhere. Gutterbrothers (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree It was a significant event that happened in Gibraltar, it was the first air disaster, and a commerative monument was put up, and recently moved to a new location. I visited it today and took pictures. I note that flowers have recently been laid there. I believe the crash occurred in Gibraltar waters, or at least it was shown that way in the film, 'The silent enemy'. The actual text removed was very short and due to the reopening of the inquiry into the event recently its something that people might want to see in a Gibraltar informational page. I suspect removing it was simply to start a dispute, ie trolling. Oh someone else said that too, perhaps because its true. --Gibnews (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else here see the blatant similarity in writing style between Gutterbrothers and Gibnews? Right down to the accusations that my only interest is to start a fight. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments regarding the alleged case of sockpuppetry can be made here, as you yourself pointed out. This page is strictly for discussing improvements to the Gibraltar article. Thanks. --RedCoat10 • talk 18:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I just want to make sure that everyone is aware of the potential of sockpuppetry here. Sorry if I come across as belligerent about this but when you have been dealing with a serial sockpuppeteer for several weeks who always protests his innocence (prior to being found out) you might understand my frustration. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not cast aspersions as to the motivations of other editors. It does not help us to reach consensus.

I don't accept your logic. Notable events happen all the time, but coincidence of location does not necessarily make those events relevant in the context of a summary history of the place that they happened. Note that this is not intended to be a comprehensive history of Gibraltar (that's at History of Gibraltar).

By way of example, I would note that students of the Arab-Israeli conflict will frequently come across United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, the resolution that mandated land for peace as a general formula for resolving that conflict. It is of sufficient importance that it gets its own section in the article History of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But by your logic, it also belongs in the article New York City - or at least History of New York City - because it was in New York that the resolution was passed. Even though it had negligible impact on New York as a city. I would argue that, while it is a notable event that happened in New York, it is not significant in the context of a summary history of New York.

In this case, I don't think this has to be removed if we can demonstrate (in the article) that Sikorski's death had a significant effect on Gibraltar. At the moment, we don't. Pfainuk talk 19:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote: The Sikorski memorial plaque was originally sited at the East end of the runway and unveiled on 12th January 1945. The Gibraltar Heritage Trust records its gratitude to the RAF Gibraltar for the gift of the plaque to the Government and people of Gibraltar on the 60th aniversary of that tragic accident in July 2003.

see: Picture here According to the inscription he was Prime Minister and CinC of Polish forces. Its also noted as the first of two air disasters in Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Gibnews, the issue is not that this information is not worthy of inclusion somewhere in Wikipedia. There is a place for everything here. It is just that it is not significant enough to the history of Gibraltar to mention in a potted summary of the same. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I originally removed that comment not realising its significance and the death of a major figure in a particular location is significant. Take the RHOPF's example the assassination of President Kennedy in Dallas, other than the assasination he has no connection to Dallas, yet it is mentioned on the History of Dallas article. The death of a major political figure in Gibraltar is germane to the History of Gibraltar even if there is no other connection. I was wrong to remove it, I hope others can admit they were wrong too. Justin talk 22:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I said, FYI, the history of the USA, not the history of Dallas: JFK's assassination had a national impact and it is right to be mentioned in a section that covers national history. (It is a very strange choice of words to ask me to "admit" I was wrong. I am still firmly of the opinion that the history section of the Gibraltar article is the wrong place in this encyclo for this information, and at least two others are of the same opinion. If this article ever gets submitted for a GA or FA review, I'm sure it, along with many other problems, will be raised.) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well you are wrong about that and also in referring to Gibraltar a colony. --Gibnews (talk) 22:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well FYI constraining any edit to conform to whatever criteria you arbitrarily define you can exclude whatever you like. What connection has Kennedy to Dallas other than he died there? What connection has Sikorsky to Gibraltar? Everything else is speculation. And FYI my remarks were not directed at RHOPF. Justin talk 23:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The info should be removed. It is not relevant.MusicInTheHouse (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep interesting, relavant and not disrupting the article. Tragino (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

In case it got lost in the discussion above: I would just like to point out for all that Gibnews has blatantly engaged in sockpuppetry here today [5] (the first edit from this newly registered user is exactly the same as Gibnews' a few hours earlier). This is a new low. Edit warring is bad, but at least noone's pretending to be something they are not. Using sockpuppet accounts to evade 3RR rules and edit war, however, is completely unacceptable and dishonest behaviour, and Gibnews has been around long enough to know that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

A False accusation I think you are having trouble accepting that people do not agree with your opinion. If you do not understand things leave them alone and anyone who insultingly refers to Gibraltar as a colony demonstrates their lack of knowledge. Remove the above or I will make whatever complaint I can in the context of Wikipedia about your defamation. --Gibnews (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that I'm not Gibnews, if that helps to clarify. I fancy that an apology is in order. Gutterbrothers (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha. That's laughable. Make any comments in your defence here [6]. (That includes the two of you.) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

ps remember that IP addresses will be checked. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not Gibnews - please stop reverting my edits to other articles for no reason - which seems rather petty and somewhat disruptive to say the least. Gutterbrothers (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I someone needs to read Wikipedia:No personal attacks --Gibnews (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Was that aimed at me? 14:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Gutterbrothers (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No --Gibnews (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's highly unusual for a new editor to know about the WP:POINT page and technicalities such as how to hyperlink. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Really? Gutterbrothers (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else here see the blatant interest in being an 'internet hardman' from Red Hat. Frankly you're starting to wind me up - which I guess means you're succeeding in your aim. You still haven't explained lat alone apologised for your actions on Warrant Officer. I assume that Gibnews is based in Gib and since I am several countries away any ISP check should be interesting. You do seem far more interested in the argument than developing the wiki. Gutterbrothers (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've put the above back in, perhaps in a more appropriate place - I'm the one being accused of sockuppetry which seems an attack to me - The above is a commentary and response to that - a direct response to Red Hat's comment again implying the I am Gibnews on this page, it seems appropriate to respond on the page that his accusation is made. If he wishes to repeat the accusation elsewhere I'll respond elsewhere (if I find it) Gutterbrothers (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Off one incident? I don't see the sock puppet investigation being taken up, RedHat. AGF. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It takes time, Narson, for the requests to be dealt with, but dealt with they will be, even if the result is negative or inconclusive. One off or not, it's against Wikipedia's policies. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You are wasting your time, and everyone elses. --Gibnews (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet checkuser has exonerated Gibnews but shows that Gutterbrothers has been operating several sockpuppets. Justin talk 21:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed [7]. So I think that means someone deserves an apology, Red Hat. Next time please assume good faith before you impute sockpuppetry to those who disagree with you. Now I suggest we abandon this discussion and move on. --RedCoat10 • talk 21:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

All today's investigation has done is show that the edits were not made from the same IP/ISP. That is all I shall say on the matter. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What no apology for being rude, wasting everyones time, AND calling Gibraltar a colony? Tsk. But Wikipedia does not operate Scots law wrong again. --Gibnews (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"CheckUser does not solve cases. It provides additional evidence of a technical nature that can be considered along with behavioral evidence, and may help clarify whether misuse has taken place." [8] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You are still wrong and spamming my user page does not help.--Gibnews (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like sour grapes to me. The history of this over the last couple of days looks like this to me:

Red Hand comes along and deletes a longstanding entry to the page with the rather rude commentary " remove trivia - what on earth does this have to do with the history of Gibraltar?"

Gib news puts it back. Red Hand reverts with another pointy edit summary. Gibnews reverts with the request it is taken to talk page. Reh hand reverts again with another pointy comment, a bit much since he could have started with a comment on talk page before intiating the fight.

A third party comes along and agrees with Gibnews. Redhand accuised them of being Gibnews and goes off and discrupts their edits to an unrelated page.

A bit of a barny ensuses on the talk page and it is clear from the investigation that GutterB is not Gibnews

There seems only one person around here who is being disruptive and unreasonable. I suggest Red hand takes a long hard look at his motivation for edits to this page. Tragino (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What Gives?

Why are talk page comments being removed? Are we to have more accusations of sock puppetry already? Justin talk 22:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. [9]. Note this time it was not me that first identified this as a sock. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the checkuser was declined as the editor has a history established before posting here and a Checkuser was run only 2 days before that showed up all of Gutterbrothers' accounts. It appears you were a little premature in rushing to label people again. I was a bit mystified by the first accusation as when I looked at the edit history I couldn't see an obvious connection. Justin talk 08:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Come on Justin, don't be naive. It doesn't take much lateral thinking to realise that these are the same person. Same interest in military articles (look at the edit histories of all the accounts - note the British Army theme [10] [11] [12]). And how often do we see new editors appear here? You're telling me that two distinct editors, one of whom is a proven sockpuppet, both of whom edit British military articles, both of whom misspell my user name in exactly the same way, both of whom arrive here within 48 hours of each other are separate individuals? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course another explanation could simply be that Tragino observed you following Gutterbrothers to the Warrant Officer article and making a series of pointed reverts and then folowed you back here to see what you were up to. Your accusation against Gibnews proved unfounded and while Gutterbrothers has edited under multiple names a cursory examination shows that they weren't concurrent. Some people just forget their password and re-register; I note that he has simply been asked to consolidate to one account. Co-incidence? Quite probably no but there is an equally plausible alternative explanation. Sockpuppets usually have a POV agenda and I just don't see one here. Not that I expect you to listen as its coming from me but you do need to chill out a bit more and not be so reactionary. Justin talk 15:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember the code for GIANT FREAKING TEXT. So, just imagine I said this in giant letters ok? WP:AGF --Narson ~ Talk • 17:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, we are naive aren't we. Look at the edit history of Regimental Police. Note the edit war, and the contributions of Tragico plus two of the confirmed socks of Gutterbrothers (oh and I see another military history editor, Smidsy999, suddenly pop up to make the same edit after a six month absence.) All it takes is for the one individual to operate some accounts from home and others from school/college/university/work/friend's/family's house and you have an explanation of why the checkuser was negative. If they are really determined, they can leverage a proxy server, lists of which can easily be found on the internet. I have dealt with some pretty devious and determined sockpuppets at Wikipedia, clearly you guys have had the fortune to have been spared.The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have dealt with one of the more prolific sock puppet masters; Generalmesse. But there you go. Justin talk 23:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

None of this has anything to do with Gibraltar. RH has wasted enough time and effort. I do not use any other accounts as claimed. If you persist in removing other editors comments I will raise a RFC. Spamming my user page is bad enough, its unacceptable here. --Gibnews (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

One could say the same thing about the death of a Polish wartime general. Cough. However, discussion of whether there is sockpuppetry at play here at the Gibraltar talk page is a valid use of the talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing like a good loser. Perhaps I had better start reading your article about the Brutish empire as its bound to be full of rubbish that needs taking out. --Gibnews (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not spam this talk page with irrelevant and immature comments. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)