User talk:Argentini an

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Argentini an, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Vintagekits 00:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome

If you need any help with anything just give me a shout. regards--Vintagekits 00:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Vintagekits for welcoming me!

The truth is that this is my second account. I dont use my previous account anymore because I stopped editing WP for a long time, and I really dont care about my edit count. --Argentini an 01:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I am already a member of WP:AR as can be seen here. I have never been to Argentina but will someday I am sure.--Vintagekits 01:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hippolyte de Bouchard

I noticed you've done a major re-write of Hippolyte de Bouchard, including changing this dates of birth and death significantly. Are we sure of this new information? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure how our article was previously so wrong. I'm glad it's more correct now. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The date of death was off by six years, for example. It's now inconsistent - giving a different date in the intro than in the text. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nomination Review

Hello, Argentini an. I've picked up Hippolyte de Bouchard for review. I've read the Good Article Review comments and understand your concerns. I've reviewed the article talk page, the request for comment, and the previous GA reviews, and I've surveyed the article histories. I am an infrequent, but detailed-oriented reviewer, and my approach to this article will be along the lines of my approach with Sauropelta. For such level of detail, I generally invest a few days of time in review before I make a response, and my response is typically to put the article on hold, and give you ample time to respond to my suggestions. If you feel that I might deal with the article unfairly, or do not feel that I'm an apt reviewer, please request me to withdraw and I will do so promptly, and with no ill feelings. I'm very particular, and picky, but I strive to leave useful criticism as an outcome of the review process, I want to have your confidence in my approach and be willing to work with me when this review gets under way. If we go forward with this, then I expect I will have my initial review of the article done by 2007-07-15. Leave a note here or on my talk page if you have any discomfort about proceeding with this. Take care — Gosgood 00:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South Georgia

Your two references refute your own claim. The first one says: "... las tres naves de la CAP llevaban pabellón argentino. ... ni la compañía izaron la bandera argentina en la isla". The Argentine flag was not raised on the island, and no anthem or declaration of Argentine possession is mentioned. The other source is the article "Title to Territory in International Law: A Temporal Analysis" that says nothing about the Argentine flag or anthem or South Georgia for that matter. Please do not push again with that unsourced text unless you provide exact quote to that end in the talk page. Apcbg 22:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I trust that you are reporting correctly that text from the book La Infantería de Marina de la Armada Argentina en el Conflicto del Atlántico Sur 1982 - Cronología by Jorge A. Errecaborde, but it contains no concrete facts of an event with the Argentine flag being raised on South Georgia, the Argentine anthem sung, and Argentine possession proclaimed. That a company registered in Argentina is "al amparo de las leyes argentinas y bajo su bandera" does not imply that people working for the company bring the Argentine law and flag to new lands. The text does not say any such thing. I don't think that your search for a source supporting your claim that Larsen and his team raised the Argentine flag, sang the Argentine anthem, and proclaimed Argentine possession. If that was the case, there would have been first-hand records in the diaries of participants and other publications. That not being the case, the authoritative Argentine source, Historia de las Relaciones Exteriores Argentinas etc. states clearly that no Argentine flag was raised by the company on the island. Why on earth would they do it? Those were not Argentine officials — unlike Captain James Cook who was a British official instructed by the Admiralty to take possession of South Georgia for Britain, which he did in 1775 in a ceremony on the coast recorded in the diaries and published in the books written by three participants in that event — moreover, there was not a single Argentine among Larsen's team that built Grytviken. All 60 of them were Norwegians, professional whalers from Norway (no Argentine scrap merchants indeed :-).
To repeat: You are claiming a conrete act, raising a flag in a particular place. No such concrete event is reported, and I object to your attempt to attribute nonexistent concreteness to the above general statement that could be made for any company registered in Argentina.
By the way, I know what "San Pedro" is; should you care to read the article you are trying to edit (and of which I am the original author) you might find the explanation of that name too. Apcbg 21:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from inserting that quote without prior discussion in the talk page, I wouldn't like to revert your edits.
Now what does that quote have to do in the introduction?
What should the reader take from such a pompous general phrase?
It should be a clear statement of concrete facts backed by sources.
If that is to mean simply that the company was Argentine, that was already mentioned in the company's name.
If some concrete action/event is alleged, then state it clearly and backed it by sources. Apcbg 22:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Please be careful when you say things like this. Although you're not referring an user in particular, you can't go across Wikipedia insulting the British people (as they can't simply insult you). Is intolerable to make that kind of insulting comments, even on a talk page. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to hurt each others. Greetings. --Bolt 15:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flaklands/Malvinas passions

Having observed some of you edits I wanted to ask you why it is (if I am correct) that so many Argenties care about the Malvinas. If there was a large population reluctantly under British Rule it would make sense; It might also even make sense if it were it were part of the mainland terriory of Argentina or near coastal Islands or perhaps if the expelled Agentines or their children wer still alive. Yet it is a group of islans some distance away from the Argentine coast with litle remaining cultural links to Argentinia. In good fatih am asking you to explain to me something that has never been satisfactorarily explanied to me: not why might an Agentinian government want it (there could be all kinds of reasons) but why does the average Argentine feel so strongly about it? Dainamo 21:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. You are right in expousing the many wrongs of British Imperial behaviour, not least in the instance of Buenos Aires, where respect is due to the colonial force who fought a professional army whose masters were merely interested in securing more dominance in trade. Equally the Spannish authorities who controlled the region had taken that land from indigious populations, but since Argentinia broke off such ties i would be a weak counter argument for me to present. I do not accept the analogy with Palenstinians and Israel where there are personal connections with the territory involving real lives; there are no "Malvinas refugees" in Argentina. The Agentine claim is now only based on a land claim. It is more analagous to England trying to reobtain Calais as they consider it a rightful part of their lands obtained forcibilly by the French from wahat had been part of English Normandy for centuries. If, for example the residents of the Shetlands Isklands wished to restablish their Norse ties and become part of a Scadanaivain Kingdom, I don't think that British People would object to it. There could well be some Scottish Fishing interests who objected, and individual politicians who found reasons to object, but crucially the bulk of the British Population would be in favour of sovreignty being decided by the islanders. I confess emotions would be different if a mianland region wanted to do a similar thing but the Shetlands like the Malvinas are not an integral part of the land. France could demand that the Channel Islands are returned, as they are the last part of the Duchy of Normandy to exist as a British protecterate, but irespective of distant history it is surely down the the people liveing there? In conlcusion the Argentinian claim over the Fawklands/Malvinas seems to me stem from some irrational national pride, while there might be the same sentiment in part for the British Claim, there is additional the moral argument that the people there today (in absence of any otehr group of Argentininian refugees in living memory) should choose their destiny. If I am misinterpreting something feel free to correct me as I respect other points of view and I am willing to change my mind if shown that I have not seen the full picture. Dainamo 16:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)