User talk:Andres Rojas

On Argentine Provinces changes and Map

First of all, I want to make clear that I value your contribution on Argentine Provinces articles.Furthermore, I understand the rationale for you removing BA City from the Arg Pronvinces list. I already stated there why I don't think it is a good idea at all: Given that the article refers to 1st level administrative divisions and that English-language-Wikipedia readers are not at all familiar with Argentine federal organization details, it is definitely better to state the Autonomous differential status right there, on that same list.

What I definitely do not understand is your removal of Argentine Antarctica and other claims from the Argentine political map. Whatever the Argentine point of view regarding the issue, Wikipedia is meant to achieve a NPOV standard, as far as I understand it. So, given that those territories are actually disputed, they must be depicted as claims, at least as long as its legal status is not disputed anymore. Regrettably, your action there is quite close to vandalism.

Hope you propose further polemic changes on articles or maps on adecuate talk-page sections.

Salut, be well. --IANVS (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily, thanks by the correction. The main idea is to respect our meaning of province, and to incorporate later the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires out of the listing of provinces, since does not possess that legal statute. With respect to the Antarctica and Islands of the Atlantic South, I forgot to clarify it, now I correct it. Greetings! PD: I put the article "under construction". Andrés

Andrés, I think the best way to adress this issue is to list every first-level administrative division of Argentina in the same list, expanding the title to Provinces and Autonomous City and stating the difference on a separate note. Why. Because the status of one or the other are NOT so different (since 1994) so as to create separated categories. In any case, this had been the consensus until now. Before initiating a major change, please ask for opinions about it on the ptalk page. Thanks. --IANVS (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC) By the way, I've just seen you reverted again the argentine map without giving a reason. Please stop this, and discuss your proposal first. Your activity is vandalism right now. You've been warned already by Pfainuk. --IANVS (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, only I am adding information, thanks, greetings. Andrés

Can you tell what information are you adding, please? Thanks --IANVS (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I contribute a new map in which complete names of the provinces are visualized and official territories of the Argentine Republic are visualized. Andrés

The map I saw did not name BA City, nor did differentiate territorial claims as such, is that rigt? --IANVS (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted a few of these maps because they do not mark which areas are claimed and which areas are actually under Argentine control. Unless it is clear from the map which areas are territorial claims and which areas are actually under Argentine control, the maps are POV. This goes for the map on Template:Argentina linked map, the map on Provinces of Argentina, and for the maps on the articles on individual provinces.

I would note that there is a discussion about leaving Antarctica off maps of Argentina and Chile altogether at Talk:Chile. This is what is done with the other states with territorial claims in Antarctica, as Antarctica is governed under Antarctic Treaty. But the Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands also need to be marked separately from Argentine-controlled territory. Pfainuk talk 18:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will change maps, and mark the claims over Antartica and disput over Falklands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

PD: Official maps of Argentina include the islands as national territories.

Official maps of Argentina include the islands in order to further the Argentine government's POV. British official maps of the area include the islands and regions of Antarctica as British. Chilean official maps include parts of Antarctica as Chilean.

I still think these maps need more explanation, in addition to the change in colour. This could be done in a similar way to the old map, but I think "Claimed Territories" would be better than "Disputed territories".

I'd also say that it should say "City of Buenos Aires" instead of "Ciudad de Buenos Aires" if it is to be used on the English Wikipedia.

~~Finally, I'd note that if you add {{POV}} to an article, you are expected to explain exactly what you think is POV on the talk page. Otherwise people will just remove the tag.~~ Pfainuk talk 20:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you did while I was typing that. OK. Striking that. Pfainuk talk 20:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands

Please do not continue to re-add the banner at the top of this article without discussing your concerns on talk. Continuing to do so is disruptive. Pfainuk talk 12:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see Ocupación británica de las islas Malvinas (1833). There are a lot of differences in both "versions".

So what? While the fact that es.wiki takes an pro-Argentine editorial line in its Falklands content is troubling, it's not ultimately our problem. And it certainly doesn't make our article POV. If you want to discuss specific problems with the article, then you're quite welcome to do so. But if you're not willing to discuss the article, the POV tag has to go. Trying to keep it tagged as POV for ever more without discussing any issues on talk is disruptive. Pfainuk talk 13:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, be aware of the 2 revert rule. Further reversions are likely to lead to you being blocked. Raise specific issues on the talk page, regarding differences - citing relevant sources, and we can make progress, simply tagging POV well not raising anything that hasn't led to consensus changes in the past is no thte way to make progress. David Underdown (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding, David. Andrés Rojas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.137.179.2 (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Stories Project

Aloha!

My name is Victor and I work with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. We're chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade new people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I find stories that drive our annual fundraising efforts. It's important to convey the incredible diversity of people who've come to rely upon Wikipedia every day.

I'd really like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia.

I will be in Buenos Aires from the 10th - 11th of March 2012.

I'm hoping you will elaborate on your story with me. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project!

Thank you,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mi nombre es Alfredo Garcés F. puedes ver mi página de usuario. Tenemos casi las mismas inquietudes y al parecer intereses. Soy físico teórico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredo Garcés F. (talk • contribs) 00:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Encuentros/Encuentro de wikipedistas en Rosario

Soy wikipedista, vivo en Rosario, y Wikimedia Argentina organiza un Encuentro para todos el sábado 19 de setiembre de 2015. No soy socio de Wikimedia; mas me interesa su venida a la ciudad. Te invito a participar. Cordial saludo Rosarinagazo (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]