Jump to content

Talk:Capture of Port Egmont

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Result

[edit]

You know there are some events that just don't fit the guidelines and this is one, I'd prefer it referred to the crisis article as that was the net result but won't edit war to achieve that. Can we have some common sense please and think of what is best for the article and our readers? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why this event doesn't fit the guidelines? --Langus (t) 01:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I dunno, maybe because A) there wasn't a battle, B) they weren't at war and C) the result was settled diplomatically without conflict. Or did you as usual presume some underhand motive on my part? Wee Curry Monster talk 16:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there wasn't a battle or a war then the problem would be the infobox in the first place, not me following the guidelines...
BTW, would you be so kind as to stop accusing me of bad faith? It's getting annoying again... Thank you. --Langus (t) 04:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Goes straight back to my first comment - somethings don't fit the guidelines. Did you accept it as a comment in good faith, no you questioned it, like there was some ulterior motive. Would you kindly stop presuming bad faith, then I won't annoy you anymore. Guidelines are not rules, and rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I questioned it because I wanted to understand why you prefer to disregard the guidance. And to be honest, I disagree... this event (Capture of Port Egmont) was a military conflict indeed.
I'm willing to submit this to external help if you want to --perhaps a WP:3O, or a question to WP:MILHIST. --Langus (t) 23:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You disagree, you've disagreed with every point I have ever made but you never explain why and then get "annoyed" when I "presume bad faith". I note, however, that the source does not substantiate the edit [1] but nontheless raised this at WT:MILHIST here. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wee, if you agree with me that WT:MILHIST has suggested the following:

("Spanish victory" OR "Spain seizes control of the islands" OR "Successful Spanish Occupation") with or without "Beginning of the Falklands Crisis".

I'd propose to you that we use:

  • Successful Spanish Occupation.
  • Beginning of the Falklands Crisis.

What do you think? --Langus (t) 18:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being ridiculous to be frank, no that bears no relation to the comments at WT:MILHIST. The fact that you got no further replies at WT:MILHIST should be telling you something but on past performance no you'll keep at it. And no that isn't a personal attack, it isn't presuming bad faith, its the product of bitter experience with an editor who has to take everything to ridiculous lengths to always have their own way. Whats next, an RFC, a WQA, a report to WP:ANI. You haven't tried WP:ARBCOM yet. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disappointing and disturbing...
  • "if this event is viewed as a successful Spanish military occupation of a settlement, then “Spanish Victory” appears justified. I would probably make it still clearer by rephrasing it as “Successful Spanish Occupation” or something like that though. [...] I would then add “Beginning of the Falklands Crisis” as a secondary result under a new bullet point (however, I don’t think that result should be used in isolation). Personally I don’t see the need to link to the aftermath section. This result seems pretty clear cut." Ranger Steve [2]
  • "Given that this invasion fits into the context of a larger series of events it might be appropriate to copy the way Wikipedia approaches the capture of Port Stanley in 1982." Wiki-Ed [3] (from this I took the "Spain seizes control of the islands" option)
You admitted here that you took the liberty of doing something that wasn't suggested. If you're going to disregard other editor's input, there's no possible dispute resolution with you. Why did you ask a question in MILHIST if you are still going to do whatever you feel like? --Langus (t) 00:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't follow Slatersteven's suggestion, for the simple reason it isn't sourced. The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome ... It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. Just to note I've already pointed out, I took one of the comments from the casualties section, simply because I thought it uncontroversial. I self-reverted as you appear to think my content suggestion wasn't an improvement. I note in response you've added the unsourced material I did not. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source Added

[edit]

Could you provide a quote to put this cite into context please[4]. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. It's done!
In a related matter, would you do the same with this ref? I'm intrigued about what book is it.
In fact, I'm thinking right now that references definitely need some work... What is "Charles Dickens, Clive Hurst, Jon Mee, Iain McCalman" supposed to be? Is it this book?? --Langus (t) 00:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've already posted a link to Maher online - you can search for it in Google Books. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Does it support the conclusion? It refers to East Falkland, Port Egmont is on West Falkland. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry, I made a mistake, "Occidental" refers of course to West Falkland.
I couldn't find the 'Maher' book Wee, could you post it here? Or tell me where you posted the link and I'll look for it.
What do you think we should do with the other sources? Does anyone know any of them? --Langus (t) 23:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Worst sourcing I've seen in a while.

[edit]

This needs a larger scale cleanup than I can do in the short term so I'm putting this notice here. It currently cites the historical novel Barnaby Rudge by Charles Dickens, and a travel guide written by a wildlife guide, as references for historical fact. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Capture of Port Egmont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Capture_of_Port_Egmont&oldid=1206542065"