User talk:Jor70/Archive01

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Welcome![edit]

By the way, seeing your edits, I guess that you are Argentinean, if you are, c'mon join us at WikiProject Argentina. Also you may like to know that Wikipedia has a small but constantly growing Argentinean community, if you want to include yourself in our noble ranks =D add this in your user page: [[Category:Wikipedians of Argentina|Jor70]] . Goodbye! --OneEuropeanHeart 02:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tierra del Fuego[edit]

The map in the MNNA article has been fixed to include Tierra del Fuego. Thanks for spotting my mistake! --Kralizec! | talk 14:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paratrooper article[edit]

Please note that we don't use Roman numbers for military articles, regardless of the official denomination. Thanks. --Nkcs 20:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You told me to not use Roman numbers in military articles, then, please correct this article first U.S. XVIII Airborne Corps :-DD Jor70 13:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That page surely must moved. As far as I know, Wikipedia maintains a policy of non-RN articles because they can be confusing for both the servers and inexperienced people. By the way, can you send me sources showing the unit's official denomination? Thanks. --Nkcs 23:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not do that, if you change their official name, they will probably send you the 82nd Airborne ;)

sure, check the official Argentine Army web site here Jor70 00:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience. Homever, you may like discussing the issue with other Argentine wikipedians for further projects' co-ordination. Cheers. --Nkcs 21:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gringos in history section of Argentina article.[edit]

Amigo,

Soy brasileño y creo que la palabra gringo tenga la misma connotación en Argentina y en Brasil. Es depreciativo y no es adequado a un texto de una enciclopédia sobre los europeos colonizadores. Además, quién llamava los europeos de gringos antes de la colonización? Los índigenas que no hablaban español? José San Martin 01:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cierto, tal vez gringo, tal como se la uso en Argentina, deberia estar en otra parte del articulo y no en esa parte de historia. tudo bem!!. Jor70 01:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sé si tu conoces la página Offensive terms per nationality, pero pienso que a ti te gustarás. És muy divertido.José San Martin 15:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A-4AR Fightinghawk[edit]

Good work! =) --OneEuropeanHeart 03:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as I have time to I will try to submit more Jor70 12:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Harrier[edit]

Your second edit to BAE Sea Harrier is reasonable. My concern with the original edit was that it created a nonsense sentence and your edit summary did not explain the reason for it. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 20:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I think the sentence merit a change. If you check the enormous Argentine bibliography made since 1982, both books and videos, Argentine pilots always refers to the AIM-9L Sidewinder as the real threat and not the Sea Harrier.

re: C-130 Hercules[edit]

Where does the Falklands/Malvinas War reference should go ?

I don't know, but some of the other countries in that list also had notable uses of the aircraft, and if we included mention of it there, it would make a short list much longer. Also, there is a similar list in other aircraft articles, that only list the countries, not what they used it for --rogerd 05:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Dart missile[edit]

I've restored your deletion, not a revert, on the Silkworm incident. There is no reason why the incident could not have happened as described. The first ship could have fired the Phalanx and missed. If the missile did not strike the first ship but continued past, then it second ship could fire upon it. GraemeLeggett 14:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note here [1] that neither the Phalanx armed nor Sea dar armed vessels was the Silkworms target.GraemeLeggett 14:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is slightly ambiguous, the unsuccessful phalanx response was from the Jarrett leading to Gloucester engaging with Sea Dart. I have changed the wording slightly to clarify this. Emoscopes ^Talk 15:04, 31 March 2006

(UTC)

Thks, its has more sense now. So the missile pass very close of the Jarrett (on the CIWS range) but continues to the Gloucester. amazing movie! :-) Jor70 16:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argentinian Revisionism in Falkands war[edit]

Please stop the Argeninian revisionism in the Falkands War article. You continually add irrelevent comments and ones that belittle the fact that the UK was on the back foot and you try to imply that the war was a forgone conclusion. It was a damned close run thing and, frankly, Argentina had too much in their favour for it to be the one-way street you imply.

As an aside, I suggest you downgrade your en-3 claim to en-2, based on your contributions to the same. --BadWolf42 21:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasnt my intention, I just tried to clarify the only 20 Fleet Air Arm (FAA) Sea Harriers sentence. Can you please tell me why that paragraph is not pure British Revisionism ? I already changed my en-3 to en-2. thanks Jor70 21:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No British revisionism about it -- why would there be? Britain won.

NPOV does not mean countering every point to negate its impact, the fact is the task force sailed with probably only a 1:10 ratio of aircraft to Argentinian 'planes. There is no relevence to this conflict as to the strength of the Royal Navy versus recent times (in fact, despite the number of ships [a lot taken up from trade], the Navy was in its weakest state for many a year. Six months later and the two aircraft carriers would also be gone).

I didn't mean to be rude, but it seems your modus operandi is to edit any comments that describe the enormous obstacles the British forces had to overcome so as to mitigate their effects. That is often, simply, not valid. There are some times this is valid (VIFFing in the Harriers, for example), however most aren't. This one isn't, and a number haven't been and I've had to spend time moving them to a valid context, or simply removing them as non-sequitur. If you wish to contest a claim, fair enough. If you wish to simply balance it, please place the counter statement in an appropriate part of the narrative.

Thanks. BadWolf42

I totally agreed about balacing the article, that was my idea when I changed phrases like Endurance retired due 3 argentines warships (which ones?) , SHarrs shot down 23 aircraft without any loose (how could be possible?) , Chile doesnt support UK (British sources said contrary) , and go on ... IMHO, to balance this, the article needs an Argentinian point of view.

Anyway, about RN strenght, is totally true your point, not only at the end of 82 it wasnt been the carriers anymore, but Argentina would also received more Sues,Exocets, new ships, etc ... How could we add this to show that the war was totally improvised and start due the Georgias Crisis and not really planned w/o doing Argentinian revisionism ? thanks for your understanding (Jor70 15:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

SHAR lost zero (0) aircraft to enemy aircraft and shot down a high number (I don't know if was 23 off the top of my head). So unless you're arguing about the numbers there, I don't see the problem. I'm afraid I'm unable to understand the rest of your English here.

NPOV is not about balancing every claim with a (dubiously accurate) counterclaim, it's about being fair to both or all points of view. Sometimes people won't like that. One such example is your bridge comment. It clearly had nothing to do with the need to send the Welsh and Scots Guards by sea. Another would be the comment as to the strength of the Royal Navy's task force relative to the previous year. It didn't affect the conflict, however a 10:1 ratio of Argentinian aircraft to FAA aircraft surely did.BadWolf42

Ok, there is a sentence that speaks about how long were the Argentines planing the operation. The fact that the Royal Navy strength was clearly going down (in 82!) whilst Argentina would became strongest the following year (1983) due the arrival of the rest of the pending Super Etendards/Exocets, the new ships that were under construction at the time, etc clearly supports the fact that the War was due the Georgias Crisis and largely improvised. I would like to add this to the Build up. Jor70 17:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how long it was being planned. I thought it was a knee-jerk bit of opportunism. Weren't the flag-pole planters on South Georgia civlilian opportunists? Feel free to change the line in question if you think it's wrong, but there's no need to insert a line that breaks a paragraph in half in a different part of the article. BadWolf42

I hope my last addition about the British merchant ships was not seen as Argentinian Revisionism :-) Jor70 17:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops.[edit]

Apologies for reverting you. Not all vandal fighting is 100% accurate. — nath a nrd o tcom ^{(T • C • W)} 12:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WW episodes[edit]

We can discuss a different format for the page on my Talk page. But, the format used in pretty standard for TV shows. The synopsises need to be shortened on the page, and merged into each episode's specific article page. And the page still needs screenshots. For examples of the same type of format being used, see List of Lost episodes, List of Prison Break episodes, and List of South Park episodes. They aren't identical, but similar. --MZMcBride 01:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I noticed that the production number (101,201,..) is missing in the WW episodes, we need to add that. And is someone in charge of getting the screenshot ? - Jor70 10:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of anyone in charge of getting the screenshots. What do you think of changing the page to look something like this? --MZMcBride 00:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falklands Edit[edit]

My apologies--I'm still trying to figure this out. Should I restore the line and start a discussion on it then? Aborrows 16:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comisión Nacional de Energía Atómica[edit]

Sorry, but please re-insert your INVAP link in the NON VANDALIZED version of the articles.(Please read: User_talk:200.45.6.125) Jclerman 14:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thks, the INVAP link seems to be at the See also section.- Jor70 14:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julio César Cáceres[edit]

Hola!, estoy contento que Julio sea muy querido por los hinchas millonarios. Espero que River Plate pueda comprar su pase y retenerlo. Saludos. Bruno18 17:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De Bleeckere[edit]

Hi. Personally I think De Bleeckere is not that good but he is considered the best belgian referee. The match against Ivory Coast will be his first WC match but he already directed some Champions League games (this year Bayern-Milan with Hermans e.g.). He already met forward Dindane of Ivory Coast in several games of Jupiler League (and this is maybe good for you).. Julien Tuerlinckx 14:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thks Julien. Hope he can maintain control and have an easy match. I think he probably already directed some of our players too Jor70 17:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure he did not. Anyway the fact is Dindane had a reputation of falling easily in the rectangle (which was not true) and De Bleeckere forgot to whistle several penalties for Anderlecht when Dindane was being assaulted. Good luck for WC. Julien Tuerlinckx 17:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot ?? are you joking ? this man is going to kill us! Jor70 21:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copodepesapal[edit]

Muy buena! no la tenia. Eso si, no encontre nada en otro idioma. :o( saludos, Mariano(t/c) 14:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yo tampoco, seguramente caera algun ingles q no esta de acuerdo, cambie tambien mundial 90

Argentina and England football rivalry[edit]

You're welcome! :-) Angmering 06:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eritrea Military Link[edit]

Hey, in looking up some other nations links it does not seem like they do not list the military page under foreign relations. As a nations foreign relations are much more broad than simply militarily, and more specifically to the Eritrea page, how the military page bears little importance to the foreign relations section in the Politics and government series, it does not seem that a link is necessary or justified. Let me know what you think. Merhawie 17:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is ok for me if you want to move the link to another section, what Im trying to say is the link must be in some place, I lost hours searching that article! :) Jor70 17:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, yea you are right! thanks for your review! --Merhawie 17:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tango[edit]

Chicos, algunos personas estan attacando List of tango singers. Defendemos? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD[edit]

Please comment about AFD on its discussion page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Chaney) Jon513 15:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Chaney[edit]

Add souces to the article and it might not be deleted. =D Jumping cheese ^Contact 19:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valencia CF[edit]

El Valencia CF está apodado como equipo che o equipo xe por ser esta expresión típica valenciana (xe es como se escribiría en valenciano). --Ferryslliria 11:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias! no lo sabia, pero tiene el mismo significado/uso q en Argentina ? Jor70 12:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creo que sí pero no se exactamente el uso en Argentina. --Ferryslliria 14:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

parece que si nomas, encontre un articulo sobre el uso del che :-) Jor70 14:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina national football team page[edit]

You reverted my attempt to make the contents box at least visible without scolling from the top of the page. I quote from Wikipedia:Guide to layout: The lead is shown above the table of contents (for pages with more than three headings). The appropriate lead length depends on the length of the article, but should be no longer than four paragraphs... Normally, the first paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail and the qualifications and nuances that follow. If further introductory material is needed before the first section, this can be covered in subsequent paragraphs.

The Argentina page has all its text in the lead: the remainder is charts and lists: this is not good style, neither are the lists in the lead section. Much of this does not refer to the national senior side, the subject matter of the article, but is about the U21 and other teams. The page is a mess, and needs sorting out.

As regards your contention over "Albicelestes" as a nickname, it is accurate to say that La Selección is also known as Los Albicelestes: if you can verify it to be true that this is absolutely restricted to those outside Argentina, you could explain this with a phrase such as "among non-Argentinians": foreigners is a subjective word, and is unsuitable for an encyclopedia read all over the world. Kevin McE 13:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems quite ok now! :-)

Regarding "Albicelestes", not such thing exist in Argentina, so unless you find an argentinian official link that state that It should be clarify with "foreigners". Jor70 18:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is still some way short of OK, and that the stuff about the junior side should be in a dedicated article, not in this one. I do not accept "foreigners" as an encyclopedic term; you are a foreigner to me, and I to you: it has no objective meaning, and so has no place in an objective document. It can easily be taken to have dismissive, almost derogatory overtones.Kevin McE 00:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "mainly among non-Argentinians" is a way nice way to clarify this Jor70 00:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jor, might I ask your opinion on the image to be found under 2002 World Cup in the article Argentina and England football rivalry. I have deleted it in the past, but the poster has continually re-instated it under the claim the it is a representation of "typical British humour". If you deemit worthy of deletion, or if you were to direct some other English-speaking Argentinian Wikipedians to the discussion about it (under the heading "Handbags", then I think Jooler would have far less of a defence. Kevin McE 09:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

IF the info is sourced from those links, then add it as a reference. If the information can in any way be included on Wikipedia, it's preferable to add the information rather than link to the site. Hope this helps, HawkerTyphoon 17:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the clarification[edit]

I was unsure of "Argentina" vs "Spanish Speaking Countries", but I wanted to solve the immediate issue, leaving it to a wiser head to perfect the solution. Fiddle Faddle 11:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, in fact most chinese media used Malvinas as well ( try [2] vs [3] and the Franch called them "Malouines" . We should put this too I think

Jor70 11:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C. external links[edit]

Apologies for removing your link while reverting on Liverpool F.C.- a series of bad edits, in particular vandalism, and an edit which had broken the infobox, meant that I felt the best option was to go back to an earlier revision- in doing so I did not directly mean to remove your link, which I'm sure you added in good faith, and which I think has every right to be there- I, for one, find it a useful resource. Robotforaday 09:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, i'll like to add Man Utd 's too [4] in their article but I do not know if I get the support. Jor70 10:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argentinidad[edit]

Los invito a participar de Argentinidad, un proyecto wiki que usa el mismo software que wikipedia, y por ende funciona exactamente igual. Es una wikipedia de la argentina con un punto de vista patriótico-nacional.

Aquí se podrán crear artículos sobre la cultura, geografía, economía, historia, gente y demás de la Argentina, con la condición de que el punto de vista NO sea neutral, sino argentino . Este no es un lugar para la militancia política o social, sólo para escribir y "hacer algo". Para eso estamos, para los que nos cansamos de que insulten al País y ver como el mundo de nosotros ríe. Siempre se dijo, "hay que hacer algo" pero nadie lo hizo. Es dificil hacer algo, nadie por sí solo va a levantarse un día y transformar a la Patria en una potencia mundial, o expulsar a los ingleses de las Malvinas, pero no por eso se va a "hacer nada". Espero que te unas al proyecto, cordialmente

Andrés 02:10 19 nov 2006 (CET)

FC Groningen[edit]

Hello I have no idea where we can find the squad numbers, but for most of the players it's already there. Knurftendans 14:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean army[edit]

disculpe amigo argentino, pero no porque Chile tenga 20.700 conscriptos va ser un peso para la institución, eso no tiene nada que ver con la profesionalidad de un ejercito, si te molesta que para mi concierne incluyendo mucha gente más, coloque que Chile tiene uno de los ejercitos mas profesionales de la región, no es que yo quiera ponerlo así, es que es así según vastantes informaciones, si quieres te digo de donde supe esto, ya que lamentablemente pareciera que no sabes leer muy bien, tus datos no son actualizados, colocas datos del 2003, estamos en año 2006, porfavor pido que coloques nuevos datos devido a que en Chile, se han echo cambios respecto a los conscriptos ahora no hay 20.700, se disminuyo y además se integro fuerzas profesionales que entrenaran durante 4 años. Porfavor ruego que coloques informaciones actualizadas y respetes opiniones como tu lo has propuesto.

17:12, 24 of november 2006 (UTC)

Tyrael15

Ese es el punto justamente, no me interesa si chile tiene o no el mas profesional, wikipedia es una enciclopedia y cada entrada debe reflejar la fuente para que todos podamos juzgar la veracidad o no de la informacion, que tu hayas leido en ""B""astantes informaciones no es justificativo, el lector casual no sabra eso. Por lo tanto debes colocar las referencias y estara todo bien. 2003 fue lo mas cercano que yo he encontrado si tu tienes una fuente seria y confiable mas moderna por supuesto debes cambiarla sino debes dejar esa.Jor70 22:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inactivo...[edit]

Che, estoy volviendome a Argentina y como tengo un quilombo padre no me conecto seguido. Si necesitas algo te recomiendo que contactes a Pablo. Saludos, Mariano(t/c) 08:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya esta gracias, parece que al fin entendio. Buena suerte con lo tuyo. --Jor70 10:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popups[edit]

Dont use popups to further your POV. Please bring your points to the talk page./ I am sure you are aware of WP:3RR if not read it, SqueakBox 00:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a 3RR coming your way, SqueakBox 00:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what you are talking about, what I do know is that you are completely blind and do not even wabt give the chance to discuss or respect a position already taken a year ago --Jor70 00:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you should have read the article I sent you. You'll peopbably be blocked in a while, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and learn the rules here if you wish to edit, please, SqueakBox 00:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Talk: Falklands War for why this is coming up as an issue right now. BTW, I havent broken 3RR myself or reverted you since way back before Vintage and Logistic and the anon joined in so I am giving a chance for the discussion to take place, SqueakBox 00:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I will be blocked because I do not follow yours terms ?? Had you read the point of view of the others users ? I have only 20 years of democracy in my country but I think I had learn something more than you --Jor70 01:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you get blocked it will be by an adnmin for breaking the rules knowingly. Democracy only works with the rule of law and while wikipedia is not a democracy it does have rules. I am trying to ensure nobody breaks them and have left a similar note with the anon. I doubt you have learnt more than me in life unless you yourself have a similar level of experience and such a comment shows bad faith, SqueakBox 01:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

breaking rules heh, you changed the article without notice !! and about bath faith, which is your position with that anonymous that is reverting right know argentine navy? Jor70 01:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its someone from London, SqueakBox 01:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y yo no tengo ningun intencion de editar borrando /Malvinas del titulo, pues al menos hasta pasan los 24 horas, que sí nos dará tiempo a resolver el problema en la pagina de discusion, SqueakBox 01:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning[edit]

Warning: for violating WP:3RR. No block at this time, but please avoid edit warring.--CSTAR 01:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Sunny Gibraltar[edit]

wikipedia is not a democracy :) I've been blocked for removing spanish language rubbish which did not belong on the English wikipedia and also wiped out of the .es wiki for adding a picture of a roadsign. Such is life.

The page you invited me to look at has settled down and hope what I added was helpful. There do seem to be those around who wish to promote edit wars and its best not to play their game.

Saludos Cordiales --Gibnews

The 'Humeal Project' vandal[edit]

Hi. :-) .. no, it will not be enough. This person will continue to return, every time under another IP, keep on pushing his pov on the articles. The articles were stable until last week someone removed some missed vandalism by this vandal, and now he is back. I am going to see if one of the vandalbots can help here. Cheers for the references, though! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem but these unfair things really mad me sick, there are plenty of articles without any source and they choose this one to full fit it with cn marks when there was already a link to their official web site explaining all those issues.

I'm not sure if State Enterprise is the correct translation for a company owned by the Federal Gov. Perhaps your better english could help here Jor70 11:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I must confess, I am a {{cn}}-lover as well .. but this specific person is just editing 4-5 articles, without discussion (he did, in former times, but people did not agree with his POV), and now he starts using this technique. A simple revert would have been sufficient, though this is better.

I am not into American law, I have no clue. Does State enterprise exist, and does that help you? Or maybe on Wiktionary? Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture uploading[edit]

Si no te es problema, subí las fotos en Wikimedia Commons y no en Wikipedia. Desde Commons se pueden usar en todas las wikis. La licencia que te conviene usar, en mi opinión, es la CC-BY-SA-2.5. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge[edit]

Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings into Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations This is just to let you know that there is a merge proposal being considered at Independent evidence for Apollo Moon landings. Given that you participated in the AfD debate about this article, you might be interested in leaving your opinion concerning this merge on the talk page. Lunokhod 16:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]