Talk:Gibraltar Hill (Bungendore, New South Wales)

Note

The NSW GNB seems to be having issues, so rather hard getting information on the two creeks (Turallo Creek, to the west, and Moura Creek, to the east) that run near the hill. Bidgee (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

gold mining information

I don't think that we should remove the information about gold mining just because it seems to be from the wrong hill. The hill where the gold came from is obviously the more notable Gibraltar Hill in NSW. If the coordinates are for the other hill then this article should be about the hill with the gold and the other hill should be redlinked and the coordinates changed in this article. Why do they have two hills with the same name in NSW, anyway? Someone should give them a good talking to. 208.54.4.224 (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of gold mining material

Why do you want to remove it? If it was at a different hill called this, then maybe the article should be about that hill, because there's next to nothing about this hill in reliable sources. Why don't you discuss it on the talk page? Also, if you don't think the section should be called "controversy" why not change it instead of deleting the fact that there are two different hills called Gibraltar hill? Also, why did you put the orphaned template back in? It's still legitimately de-orphaned. 208.54.4.224 (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

How many hills called Gibraltar are there in NSW?

How many? Why are other editors removing reliable sources that state that there are at least two such hills? Why is this hill notable and the other one's not? The other one's the one that's all over reliable sources. 208.54.4.224 (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The hill near Adelong isn't known as "Gibraltar" (NSW GNB), this article is only about one hill and not the others that exist, other hills shouldn't be lumped into one article and stop adding "Controversy", when it isn't. Clearly you're here to disrupt the article and Wikipedia to prove a point. Bidgee (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is that so clear to you? You should think of the reader, who might come to this article looking for information about Gibraltar Hill and never even know that they're reading about the wrong one. There are two of them in NSW alone, so it's not implausible. It is shameful of you to template me for vandalism just because it's somehow obvious to you that I'm being disruptive. Do you just not want to mention the other Gibraltar Hills? What point do you suppose I'm trying to make, anyway? 208.54.4.224 (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If you don't think it should be called "controversy" then fix it. How is it wrong to mention other hills with the same name? 208.54.4.224 (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The other hills are trivial and don't belong in the article, you also have no consensus to add it. Bidgee (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If the other ones are trivial, why is there so much sourced information about them? Anyway, I'm in the process of reporting you at EWN. I'd tell you on your talk page, but I can't edit it. 208.54.4.224 (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's not possible to gain consensus without a discussion, which you refuse to have. 208.54.4.224 (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you've failed to outline the changes in a discussion format to gain a consensus. You only keep pointing out that other hills exist, if you think the other hills should be covered in Wikipedia, why not create an article on every one of them and I'll move this one so it can become a disam page. Bidgee (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I started talk page sections for every change I made. Not only did you not discuss anything before you reverted me multiple times, but you even accused me of vandalism, disruptive editing, and trying to make a point before you even began to engage in discussion. I gave perfectly good reasons why the other hills ought to be mentioned, and you have refused to engage with me at all about it. You're still refusing to engage with me. 208.54.4.224 (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You were adding incorrect information. I still little point in discussing this any further, I've already pointed out why they shouldn't be added. Bidgee (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I stopped adding the gold-mining information on your word that that was a different hill. The other hills with the same name are real and the information I added was sourced. You're conflating two things: the gold mining on a different hill (OK, shouldn't be added, different hill) and the other hills called Gibraltar. You have not given any reason for not adding that information, and you insist on calling it incorrect when by your own admission it is in fact correct. You really can't have it both ways. 208.54.4.224 (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

edit warring

rienistated protection, & rolled back one edit this article was suppose to have been protected until dispute was resolved, not sure what went wrong. Gnangarra 01:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually think that the dispute was resolved. The new material I added, with source, was not under contention. Why did you remove it? Is there some kind of problem with it? 208.54.4.203 (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

no indication the dispute has been resolved, Gnangarra 02:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

How do you figure that? Bidgee didn't want the gold mining material in here because he said it was the wrong hill. I believed him and he started an article on that hill. Bidgee didn't want the names of other such hills in here and I was convinced by him. What's the problem? 208.54.4.203 (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Capital Wind Farm

Does anyone think that this material, removed by the admin who just protected the page after peace has already broken out, should not go in the article:

The Capital Wind Farm at Bungendore is visible from the hill, and, according to Australian naval officer Stacey Porter, the view makes "a really nice outlook."

208.54.4.203 (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: I put the material back in after Drmies unprotected the page. Of course I'm happy to discuss! 208.54.4.203 (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)