Talk:Falkland Islands/Archive 3

message: Is there anyway the page could be protected against unsigned edits? These amount for over 95% of the vandalism acts! Regards, Asterion 18:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is called semi-protection.  You can request it here: Request for Page Protection.  However, I suspect the admins will say that the vandalism rate is too low for protection, and that we should just revert when it happens.  You may wish to try. -- Gnetwerker 23:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  and , by the way the UN names the Falklands "Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" , I think that ends that line of discussion. 
I will wait and see how it goes. If this sort of actions continues, I shall be requesting semi-protection. Regards, Asterion 16:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to have quietened down.  I note that simple vandalism on the Gibraltar pages is reverted in a minute or so, so someone is watching closely. --Gibnews 19:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget semi-protection, it needs around 10 vandalistic acts a day. So, just keep it on your watchlist and revert when you see it.KimvdLinde 15:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on vandalism 

message: Today, 2nd April, is Malvinas Day in Argentina: Day of the War Veterans and the Fallen in the Falkland Islands. May the fallen from both sides rest in peace. Asterion 16:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malvinas Day today 

message: I seem to recall someone wanting a source for the claim that the junta began the invasion to distract attention from unrest at home: The Guardian quotes  a recent speech in which President Kirchner blamed "cowardly aggression" by the then military dictatorship. The junta, said the centre-left president, wanted to shore up its position at home by embarking on a nationalist adventure abroad, while he also reasserted Argentina's claim. The story is also covered here. ..dave souza, talk 13:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for invasion

message: I have tried to reorder the material in the intro into a more logical sequence (while doing my best not to upset the fine balance of sensibilities over other things!) The islands should be described first, before we get into any stuff about sovereignty, wars etc. After that, it makes no sense to talk about the war without first stating the islands' present status and the Argentine claim. The stuff about the name certainly belongs in the intro, but is logically subsidiary to physical description and sovereignty issues. (This is not meant to be controversial!) Vilĉjo 17:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was a good edit.  I hope it survives. -- Gnetwerker 19:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Second that. KimvdLinde 19:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that seems to me the nearest we are likely to get to the Holy Grail of NPOV on this matter: Put it in the first sentence (even though it is, in English-language usage, very much a minority term, as any Google search will verify), but distinguish it visually from the official name by different styling. Maybe it'll make no-one completely happy, but at least if everyone's equally (and oppositely) unhappy ...! Vilĉjo 21:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, this ussage of only Malvinas was a very hard negotiated compromise, and if you would look at the straw poll above, most were in favour of much clearer language. Malvinas is a english term, so italic is unlogical as that is used for foreign words. If people want that, use than the Spanish version, Islas Malvinas and put in parenthesis like (Spanish: Islas Malvinas). This slowly eroding of the compromise is not acceptable. KimvdLinde 09:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reordering material in intro 

message: It seems that we have to start the name discussion again. The long negotiated compromise is actively violated. What are the NEW arguments to change this conpromise? KimvdLinde 09:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Italicising Malvinas has to be one of the lamest pieces of edit-wearring I've ever seen.  We have now been through this so many times that I have it in mind to block anyone who italicises instead of bolding that word, for disruption.  It's gone well past a joke. Just zis Guy you know? 09:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems perfectly reasonable to me, perhaps you need to consider why it is so important to you to demand that an inapporpriate foreign name is given prominence.  As for blocking people for simply disagreeing with you, if you do that, you are not acting responsibly.--Gibnews 11:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It is indeed a fine candidate for WP:LAME. (I changed it once in the obviously forlorn hope that it might be an acceptable compromise—some hope!) But why would you block for italicising and not for bolding? That seems unduly partisan—aren't both disruptive? Kim seems to be claiming that the style, not just the wording, was the subject of a consensus. I can't see any evidence of that on the talk page—or in the edit history, if it comes to that. (If anything, italicisation seems to have been the unstated norm in all the discussions.) I'm hardly going to pursue an edit war over two apostrophes, but I'm bothered by the assertion that this is violating a "long negotiated compromise"—and also by a sysop's threat to unilaterally impose one version rather than another. Vilĉjo 10:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also dispute the assertion that "Malvinas" - even without the "Islas" - is actually an English word. When is the word ever used in English, except in edit wars on Wikipedia? True, foreign words can indeed become naturalised, but has this really happened to the word "Malvinas"? Does any English speaker actually call the islands that, without making a conscious decision to do so? I doubt it. TharkunColl 10:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is either a English word, or you have to indicate which language it is. KimvdLinde 10:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or not use it at all. TharkunColl 10:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wich has been decided already long time ago. KimvdLinde 10:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a new suggestion: The Falkland Islands, also called the Malvinas (though not by the inhabitants), are an archipelago... TharkunColl 10:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  A compromise solution has been arrived at.  One or two people who dislike the compromise solution (which was in any case largely a response to the fact that - you - they don't like the way Britannica, ISO and the CIA World Factbook name the islands) have taken it upon themselves to try to override or subvert that consensus.  It is tendentious and disruptive, and that is not on: they know perfectly well that their preferred format is contentious, they know that if they come back here with it they will get the same result as last time, so they are edit warring.  And I'm not disposed to sit back and let them do it.  Just zis Guy you know? 10:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If we reached a consensus, why break it? Eroded? by what? You continue to go around the same subject without giving any valid reasoning considering the nature of the Wikipedia. And if a user decides to systematically go against a consensus that we reached so difficulty, then how is that not vandalism? Mariano(t/c) 12:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The argument that this is english wikipedia is a bullshit argument, see WP:NPOV#Anglo-American_focus. KimvdLinde 14:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it wrong to point out at the outset that the islanders don't use the term? Why is an extra fact unwelcome here? TharkunColl 10:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the talk page. You are now just disruptive. If you can not deal with how wikipedia works, I suggest you leave it. KimvdLinde 11:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the talk page?  They wrote most of it!  The point TharkunColl wants made in the first para is already covered in detail in the third para, complete with context.  Nobody who reads that will be left in any doubt whatsoever as to the islanders' views on the matter.  What we have now is a compromise between the "No Malvinas" editors' initial demands and the original text; they now apparently want to go back for a second round and come up wth a "compromise" between the compromise and their original demands - a process which will, presumably, continue until such time as the article says what they wanted it to say in the first place.  Well bollocks to that.  As written, it is neutral and satisfactory to moat of us here, as evidence the discussions above.  Not everyone agrees?  Welcome to the real world.  Just zis Guy you know? 13:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the dispute here still over the issue of italics vs bold? If so, no consensus was ever reached on the matter (if I am wrong, please point out where it was reached). It appears to have been mainly Kim who has consistently been insisting that bold must be used, and misleadingly putting "per consensus" or similar in the edit summary. Though it's a desperately lame thing to edit-war on, please don't claim that consensus was reached where AFAICS it doesn't even seem to have been discussed. Vilĉjo 14:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since that's how the foreign names first appeared when someone added them (i.e. in italics), that's what I assumed the current version would be like. TharkunColl 14:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That holds true only for the (Spanish: Islas Malvinas) format. Mariano(t/c) 14:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely.  TharkunColl is being disingenuous, and he knows it. Just zis Guy you know? 14:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. The first edit to use the current version of the opening wording gave Malvinas in italics. (Really, JzG, there's no excuse for making accusations like that against TharkunColl, when the facts are easily discovered from the edit history.) It was not until 49 edits and over 12 days later that it was changed to bold. That was by an anon, but Kim has been stubbornly reinstating it ever since—and now calls it "consensus"!! Vilĉjo 15:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most recent version that I have been watching several times and reverted to because of vandalism was with Malvinas. So, a sudden change to Malvinas is weird. I checked the talk page, and the compromise discussed most of the timne contained Malvinas. At the last version, it became Malvinas and that one was inserted. Then I was gone from wikipedia for a long week, and when I came back, it was Malvinas. But I agree, the original inserted version was Malvinas, and I will respect that. KimvdLinde 16:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder who changed that?  No matter: bold works best.  End edit warring works worst, by a very long way. Just zis Guy you know? 17:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That edit claims that Malvinas "has always been the geographical name for the islands in Spanish". But TharkunColl wrote above: It is not true that the name "Malvinas" has always been the Spanish name. It only dates from the late 18th century French occupation, as it was the French who coined the word. "Falkland" is almost a hundred years older, and older still is the Dutch "Sebald", which was also used in Spanish. Better, therefore, to add your sentence at the end of the first para. (One would hope it could not be regarded as controversial—even those who think the name "Falkland(s)" should be used by everyone, everywhere, can hardly deny that the name is, in practice, a matter of dispute.) Vilĉjo 18:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name discussion again 

message: The name of a territory can ONLY be decided by the sovereign power, and as such the territory in question is The Falkland Islands. We do not state on the United Kingdom page that in other languages it is known as Royaume Uni, Reino Unido, etc, therefore there is no reason for this to be called anything other than the name decided by the sovereign power. In any case a translation would be "Isle Falklands" "Islas Falkland" and so on.
It may be OK to mention on the text that others know it as "Malvinas" but NOT at the beginning of the article as if this had official status.
It is not for a group of people on the internet to reach a "consensus" on whether a territory should have a diferent name, this is the sole prerogative of the sovereign power, i.e. UK.
:the beginning of the text os for commonly used names, not official stuff. That can be done at government websites. KimvdLinde 17:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop the nationalistic stuff. Government sides are by definition NOT reliable to resolve encyclopedic issues. KimvdLinde 18:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not nationalistic to speak the truth. According to your ideas, the whole world and his wife should have a say in the naming of the place, apart from the people that actually live there. TharkunColl 18:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, however, nationalistic to ignore the alternative name used by a substantial proportion of the world's population, including ISO, Britannica and the CIA.  But we have been here before.  The FACT is that the British Government, your preferred source, cannot be considered neutral, and it is absurd to suggest otherwise. Just zis Guy you know? 19:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The British Government's opinion is DEFINITIVE.--Gibnews 05:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  How dare you suggest that it is I, and Gibnews, that are the cause of this latest outbreak. There have been dozens of sneaky attempts to subvert the consensus, not least the attempts to put "Malvinas" in bold, rather than italics. TharkunColl 23:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies if I have misrepresented your opinion.  It would appear that in the comment at the top of this very section, Gibnews has taken a position that Malvinas does not belong in the lead, and your previous statement "This statement appears to give the impression that both sides in this dispute were equally at fault" concerning another part of the lead contributed to my belief that you also were rejecting the previous compromise.  If it's not so, please say so.  Vis the italics vs. bold issue, I support the previous agreement, which was to use italics. -- Gnetwerker 23:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, I am happy to leave the M word in, but in italics as it is not an alternative legal name - so we are actually in agreement.  That was the only change I apart from trying to describe the war correctly which also you were substantially in agreement.  I'm not trying to score any political points, or for that matter blame Argentina - just state FACTS like is it.--Gibnews 05:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The compromise never held. People kept on placing increasingly anti-Falkland islander statements in it, based on their own political stance. Why are we treating this territory any different from any other? No one has yet satisfactorily answered why a non-native foreign language term should be included at all, and have most certainly provided no Wikipedia articles where this is the case. Their stance in this issue is clearly political. TharkunColl 23:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Their stance in this issue is clearly political." -- as is yours, of course.  However, I take it that you are using the random vandals as the excuse to abandon the compromise?  There is no point in further arguing with the partisans on either side, hence my belief that we need to bring this into the Wikipedia mediation process. -- Gnetwerker 23:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No! My stance is linguistic - as with all my Wikipedia edits. TharkunColl 23:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't see any reason for an ArbCom case. Though it's only been a few hours, the present text appears to be stable, and AFAICS neither Gibnews, TharkunColl nor anyone else no-one from either side (with the exception of a single anonymous intervention from a possible sockpuppet of Gibraltarian) seems to be actively trying to subvert it. There are still outstanding issues, but no evidence at present that they can't be dealt with rationally without going to mediation. Is anyone out there objecting to the original compromise text, which I think we have now restored? Vilĉjo 23:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm content with the current lead.  Let it stand--Gibnews 05:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, seems okay to me as well. TharkunColl 07:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The next time calm down, why do you need to fight like that? You have been discussing for weeks, and arrived to an agreement, or something that looked like one. Why do you have to carry on? and why do you need to be so agressive? (Personaly I dont care much about a name but this isn't the way we are supposed to work here); and Tharkun, you have to understand our puint of view, the "non native foreign language" is the language of the people you expelled. You won't understand why after 180 years we still claim the islands, it is in our blood,it is part of of our argentinity and you won't change that.  See, I'm 16, and don't like you very much. (But I'm happy; I know you don't hate us, as many of our connationals hate you, and as an argentine-italian I am not able to complaint, because I will be lucky eough to be allowed to visit if I want, after the EU's constitution.) Excuse me if I offended you - Argentino (Talk cont.) 14:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  The Falkland Islands are not part of the EU, and like the other British overseas territories, maintains its own immigration controls. Even British citizens need the permission of the territory's government if they wish to reside in the Islands (with the exception of the British military on active service). Astrotrain 14:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: After 180 years any people who lived in the Falkland Islands are dead and history.  We the people (here) did not expell anyone and the Only people who have the right to determine the future of the territory and indeed its name are those people who live there today. Many countries are the result of successive invasions, for instance Britain and Argentina - there is no turning back the moving finger of time. --Gibnews 22:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your frankness, Argentino. I don't hate you - I've never met you - and I don't hate the Argentine people. But what I do hate is military aggression, especially by fascistic governments against a much smaller neighbour unable to defend itself. Galtieri was banking on the British not getting involved. It was a gamble, and he lost - big time. Why is it in your blood after 180 years? 180 years ago the British controlled a quarter of the world, but do I get upset that we don't any more? Hell no! I'm glad that we have created so many new countries all over the place - our legacy in history is secure. But I must point out that Argentina never controlled the Falklands. Spain did, but you Aregentines rebelled against your colonial masters. You cannot claim a territory that you never controlled, it makes no sense whatsoever. It is all propaganda by your government. TharkunColl 16:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall it, Galtieri based his opinion that the Brits wouldn't care on the fact that the FCO was at that time already in negotiation about a handover (whether that was just an urban myth I don't know).  He forgot, of course, that the old adage "when in trouble at home declare war overseas" applies to British Prime Ministers every bit as much as any other political leader, and there is no doubt that the Falklands conflict was exactly what Maggie needed at the time.  But all that is an aside.  Just zis Guy you know? 16:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and I was never a supporter of Thatcher. If the Argentines had never invaded then who knows, perhaps a negotiated settlement would have happened. Thatcher destroyed the British economy and I can only think of two good things that she ever did - stand up to Argentine military aggression, and allow pubs to open in the afternoon. TharkunColl 16:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: As stated multiple times above, what the UK decides is irrelevant to what other countries call it.  The UK cannot wish away the territorial claim.  It is, in any case, simply a case of squatter's rights. Just zis Guy you know? 19:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: At least four countries have claimed the islands as their own over time.  Which one happened to end up there is an accident of history. Just zis Guy you know? 21:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No its not an 'accident of history' people have fought and died to make things the way they are. Count yourself lucky to have avoided that - read This and be nice to the guys in .fk they have enough problems already without being insulted. --Gibnews 21:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name = Falkland Islands, NOTHING ELSE 

message: I pledge to swiftly revert non-consensus edits and vandalism to the intro from any point of view, British, Argentine, or other. -- Gnetwerker 15:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is we originally agreed indeed. Gibnews and others, remember the straw poll? --Asterion 11:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I remember the straw poll, which I'd have voted in had it not been suggested that my vote shouldn't be counted. PhilipPage 01:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I sincerely have no idea what you are on about now. Stick to the subject of the article, please--Asterion 11:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps because its in reply to KimvdLinde who seems to want to shift the goalposts on the agreed position because of a lack of understanding of territorial disputes.--Gibnews 14:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one is talking about territorial disputes or Spain or whatever but wikipedia guidelines and policy on naming conventions. Any revert of the status quo will need to be taken care of swiftly. We have previously agreed on keeping the Malvinas name there and I want a guarantee you will stick to this. Regards, --Asterion 17:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets be plain, the ONLY reason the name exists is to give credibility to a territorial claim. --Gibnews 21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not want to change anything, but if people are going to push again for removal of the term, I equally could start pushing for the inclusion of the wider term in line with wikipedia policies on naming. KimvdLinde 16:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I did see that -- it was great to see.  If we stop fighting over the lead, we can move on to improving the article as a whole (which is already pretty good, I'd say). -- Gnetwerker 22:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I am sorry, and didn't mean to misrepresent your position, I was just quickly scanning the various sides.  No offense intended!  You have been eminently reasonable here. I have requested semi-prot to deal with Gilbraltarian, but don't know if it will be given. -- Gnetwerker 22:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation seems under control, and as I have pointed out there are at least 2000 Gibraltarian ADSL users, you may have problems with one called Gibraltarian for historical reasons - and although none of us have any sympathy for certain territorial claims, we understand the issues better than most. Indeed we nearly directly participated--Gibnews 08:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pledge 

message: The naming of a territory is the SOLE prerogative of the sovereign power, i.e. UK. If others wish to call it something else, then of course this can and indeed should be reflected in the text, but NOT by giving it equal status to the one and only official name of the territory, i.e. The Falkland Islands.
There is nothing to reach consensus on, it is for the sovereign power UK to decide alone. If Wikipedians reach "consensus" on who should be the next UN Secretary General, do you really think that anyone should take notice? It is not possible to reach "consensus" to alter a fact. This is after all an encyclopedia and must deal in FACT. If we reach "consensus" here that the moon is actually made of cheese after all, nothing will alter the reality of it. 
I repeat it is the SOLE prerogative of the UK as sovereign power to decide the name of the territory, and they have done so. It is "The Falkland Islands", nothing else. I am not suggesting eliminating any mention of alternatives, but none can be given quasi official status, no matter how many Wikipedians think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.236.223 (talk • contribs) sockpuppet of banned user Gibraltarian
::Remember, Do not feed the trolls, best answer to this sort of remarks is to ignore them. --Asterion 14:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Consensus"?????? 

message: It might be worth including this term - exonym - in the article. TharkunColl 23:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Exonym]]

message: I just reprotected the page for a day or so. Something to remember with him is that if he posts here, he can be immediately reverted. He is a blocked user. He uses a consistent IP range. So. If you see him, revert him. And we have the arbcom behind on this. They confirmed his indefinite block several months ago. So. Don't hesitate to revert him. We don't have to put up with his posts. --Woohookitty(meow) 19:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibraltarian 

message: I Am about to explode because the edits by Mdkarazim are violating WP:NPOV. "The policy in a nutshell:
:All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories, and portals." [quoted without copying format]
I don't want to say that he did it on purpose because, I assume he tried to help however, in order to pro-britishate the article (I repeat, probably not desiring it) he wrote in the edit summary the following:
:"(Sentence split; removal of passive voice - the antecedent is "Islands," but the Falkland Islands were not defeated; Argentina was defeated.)"
And the paragraph was changed from this:
:"Argentina has continued to claim sovereignty over the islands, and the dispute led them to invade and briefly occupy the islands before being defeated in the two-month-long 1982 Falklands War by a United Kingdom task force which returned the islands to British control."
To this
:"Since then, Argentina has continued to claim sovereignty over the islands. The dispute over sovereignty led to Argentina's invation and brief occupation of the islands, which ended after the two-month-long 1982 Falklands War. A United Kingdom task force achieved victory in the islands, which returned them to British control."
Let me explain that there is no sintax problem, thus that there is no reason to change the text; syntax is part of "spanish" subject in every elementary school in Argentina so I beelive I'll do it right, or will find the same problems i'd find to solve a simple mathematical substraction.
Syntax's aim is to determinate the role of every word of a sentence and find the cohordinated and subordinate sentences of a paragraph.
I start analising syntactically the deleted paragraph. Note That "()" enclose 1st degree subordinated sentences,and  "[]" enclose 2nd degree (inside 1st)
 Argentina has continued (to claim sovereignty over the islands,) 
 (subject)      [verb]                   [object]
 
 .         (subject)      (object)  (     verbs              )        (1st subord.)
 .    and the dispute led them (to invade and briefly occupy the islands)(before being defeated
 (coordination)      (verb)  (subordination)                  (OBJECT)               (verb)
 .
 .                                                                     (2nd subordination)
 in the two-month-long 1982 Falklands War by a United Kingdom task force [which returned
 (             place indication             )      (      agent           )        (verb)   
 
 the islands to British control.])
 (object)      (specification)
 
Now, "islands" can not be the antecedent because they are part of a separated subordinated sentence,  it is separated because I can say "the dispute let them to a war before being defeated" and it is still a logical sentence with sence. That is why I am about to revert.—Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I entirely follow your arguments as to why this violates WP:NPOV, but I do entirely agree that Mdkarazim's take on syntax is bizarre, to put it mildly. (I can't see any way that "islands" can be read as the antecedent.) The previous version was better and clearer (and spelled correctly, too), so please go ahead and revert – if you don't, I will! Vilĉjo 22:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit by Mdkarazim

message: So now Malvinas has vanished from the lead, but we have people adding the Argentine names to the infoboxes?  Come on, people!  I've protected it (do let me know if it's the wrong version) and if I catch anyone climing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man there willl be trouble. Just zis Guy you know? 20:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF? 

message: An actual URL was shown in the article (under History) with a "see the following link" type of description.  The Manual of Style frowns upon this practice (under External links, Link titles) and it was fixed without removing the link.  If someone else would like to add this external link to the References, the material referenced in the article appears to be from page 126 of the link.--ndyguy 03:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate Use of an External Link 

message: By whom were the British "forced to repatriate the remainder of the Argentine settlement"? TharkunColl 23:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody already fixed this. :) Sebastian Kessel Talk 01:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In January 1833, British forces returned, took control, forced to repatriate the remainder of the Argentine settlement, and began to repopulate the islands with British citizens.

message: “The Argentina Nation ratifies its legitim and imprescriptible sovereignty on the marine Falklands islands, Georgias of the South and Sandwich of the South and corresponding spaces and insulares, for being it divides member of the national territory. The recovery of these territories and the total exercise of the sovereignty, respecting the way of life of their inhabitants, and according to the principles of the international right constitute a permanent and cannot be waived objective of the Argentine town.” 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.67.164 (talk • contribs) 
The above was left by an IP at the top of the page (it also managed to scrub a chunk of conversation - possibly as a result of a google toolbar issue). I moved it down the article because it didn't seem right to leave it at the top. Megapixie 00:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by an IP