User talk:Jor70/Archive03

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.)

Operation Black Buck

I reverted it because it was unnecessary, the sentence implies they turned the radar off during Black Buck raids, which is true. Personally I assumed your edit was made in good faith to improve the article but the grammar and context were incorrect and it was unnecessary. I don't have room in edit summaries for prolonged apologies explaining why I reverted, I would suggest you do not infer anything from that - it certainly does not imply you were assuming my actions were made in good faith. Justin talk 12:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, noticed this discussion on Justin's talk page, how much more "gentle" do you want it!? I don't see a problem with Justin's tone. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Who are you ? and what are you talking about ? --Jor70 (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well my signature should tell you "who I am", and do u really need help working out what I am talking about??? Ryan4314 (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine Ryan is referring to your original post on my talk page. It was unnecessarily accusatory. Justin talk 19:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Falklands War

Do you have any comment on the Spanish phrase used in the Psywar leaflet? My limited grasp of the language indicates its somewhat scrambled. Justin talk 16:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Justin I didn't follow you, could you pls show me a link? --Jor70 (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

used here on the article [1] and discussed here [2]. Justin talk 16:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Islas de LOS condenados": condenado (used for guilty and already with a punishment) convicto (just guilty). In this case perhaps they meant as punishment to fight in the islands ? --Jor70 (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that they were printed in a rush and the author didn't speak Spanish properly, hence what we would call "broken Spanish". I can't remember the Spanish word but its a bit like "pidgin English", do you understand what I mean? There was a comment from an IP editor who pointed out it was incorrect, I wondered whether that should not have been removed. Justin talk 08:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum. According to the original source, the title is supposed to be "Islands of the Condemned" but I think the author's Spanish was incorrect. Justin talk 11:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know what a pidgin English is. Anyway, for the purpose of the article, I think "Islands of the Condemned" is clear enough --Jor70 (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Cardiff

Ah ha ha, have you looked at the Cardiff's edit history recently or ever? Tell you what, I'll put a link up to save you the trouble and here's a link to the huge rewrite I did, I'm also guiding the article to FA class at the moment. Now if you'd asked me nicely I would've told you my edit summary was meant to say; "Woah, what's going on here? LOL every other ships "extra note" is about what damage it received", but I accidentally pressed "return" to early. I don't expect an apology for your tone, but it'd be nice if u reverted your change, as I'm gonna do it anyway. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't replied to me, I know you feel strongly about things like that [3]? Ryan4314 (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:A-4C_Tte_casco.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:A-4C_Tte_casco.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the drop-down box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:A-4C Tte casco.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:A-4C Tte casco.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:A-4C Tte casco.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Article about the A-4AR has been "nominated" for deletion?

Hi Jor, as I've noticed that you was quite heavily involved editing this article I thought that this issue could interest you. Please check in this article's talk page as I believe it's unfair to delete the article. Cheers, DPdH (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Latin-American Wikipedia Meeting

"Latin-American Wikipedians,unite us!"

Latin America:one world,one dream!! Hi wikipedian!Today I'm going to talk you about a new proposal that can to advantage you and many other users of Latin America. You,that is from Latin America (second your userbox),already shall to have observed the importance of the Wikimedia Frojects in the region.Only Wikipedia represent 40% of the internet access.With every this importance,why don't we make a big meeting? Of this idea,was borned the proposal for a Latin-American Wikipedian Meeting.Various Wikipedists has Latin-American users and this is a proposal of a culture and ideas interchange,that can be help all projects.Above this,comtemplate to help in the formation of new WMF chapters in Latin America. The main page and the talk page is originally in English,with translations in Dutch,French,Portuguese and Spanish(NOT YET).

Tosão (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad Faith Comment on my Talk Page

Please don't leave bad faith comments on my talk page, your changes were uncited thats all. Justin talk 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I just thought the same of you, just all, thay why I asked you. You rv me asking for reference for a obvious thing about CBA (COOPERACION BRASIL ARGENTINA ) 123 ? e.g. [4] and you rv me again and add a fact (on the APG66 article) without any source. sorry but that seems bad faith to me too --Jor70 (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Have a look above and see who intervened to stop the A-4 image being deleted. You didn't supply a cite and no its not obvious what an unexplained acronym means. I've always supplied valid reasons for all my changes; don't assume bad faith. Justin talk 22:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

UNINDENT

I see you've done the same again. There is nothing bad faith about pointing out when you change know something you know to be a verified fact clearly for POV reasons. Despite it now being dismissed as British "propaganda", the origin of that story was Argentine; it was an interview with an FAA officer by an American journalist. Wikipedia doesn't change facts simply because you don't like them. Justin talk 07:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

you know this, wikipedia is not your soapbox Jor70 was not very gently, Is not the problem if I like it or not here, doesnt matter that, I took the time to read those sources and found

• [17] Only AR footnote is an interview sailor Ferrer: nothing about mirages
• [18] Your pilot interview is mention at Footnote 21: Comodoro Carlos E. Corino Grupo 8: is never talking about withdrawal, etc only about mirage's speed. Search "21" and please not show american author conclusions
• [19] Is the official argentine source and said the opposite: brindar escolta a los cazabombarderos de la FAA, e impedir los ataques de aviones de la Royal Navy y de la RAF sobre las Malvinas - translation: [[5]]

Then, instead of assuming bad faith and quick revert my detailed posts, could you at least be more clear and give me the benefit of doubt ? --Jor70 (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, you know that the story came out of Argentina, the reference is on the Black Buck article. You're not providing detailed posts you're seeking to expunge material that you dismissed as British propaganda but is not. Not one of those sources is British. And it isn't the first time you've tried to remove that material, you knew where that story came from and you were still trying to censor it and then reverted to try and remove it once more. So in this case, no, I don't think you get the benefit of the doubt. Justin talk 10:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I DONT KNOW THAT IS TRUE, why you said that? and again you dont answer my points. I already show you several times those sources not directly mention the specific fact of the so called "mirages widthdrawl" as argentine. On the contrary I already show you that they continue to operate over the islands during the whole conflict --Jor70 (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And nobody is saying that those sources are British, you are saying that are Argentines, and I already show you twice that is only the case of the 3rd and SAID THE OPPOSITE!, please stop diverting your answers and get to the point. If you want to leave the paragraph at least respect your own sources and change to Some sources or Many sources --Jor70 (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And the American sources quote the Argentine interview - that is where it comes from. You're splitting hairs. So no I am not going to change the paragraph and you don't have a consensus to do so. Its properly sourced and it will stay. Your "points" have already been addressed elsewhere, there is no point in covering the same ground again and again and again. Justin talk 16:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

the interview is not quoting the widthdrawl, is talking about other things!, ELSEWHERE you never point out this correctly, you always get away of the real point in discussion , the same thing happenened with astiz which you continue refuse me and later recognize that he arrived georgias later , you see, Im not trying to insert argentine propaganda here, Im trying to point out what the sources (that you provided) said

the thing is very clear here: YOU HAVE TWO AMERICAN DOCUMENTS, WHICH USE 1 ARGENTINE REFERENCE TALKING ABOUT OTHER THING (AMONG COUNTLESS BRITISH BOOKS, check yourself the footnotes list), AND YOU TAKE ALL THE DOCUMENT AS AN ARGENTINE IDEA ! YOUR 3RD REFERENCE SAID THE OPPOSITE, I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU STAND ON THIS. --Jor70 (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Again you're misrepresenting things, on the South Georgia article I pointed out that Davidoff's workers were infiltrated with Argentine military personnel - thats a fact. Astiz came later. The origin of the story about withdrawal of Mirage III to defend BA is Argentine, one of the references quoted is Argentine. You can shout and scream all you like, it doesn't change anything. Justin talk 19:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As always, you do not answer any of my points, and divert to another thing: I was metioning the fact you were sure than astiz was in the first landing. And yes as you said, ONLY ONE (1) source is argentine and btw IS IN SPANISH : here you have the translation again [6] . now still diverting and not accepting any discussion --Jor70 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

[7] "As a result of these heavy losses...it was decided to pull the Mirage III's back to the mainland to stand alert for a possible Vulcan attack."
[8] "Finally, the bombing raids caused the Argentines to fear an air attack on the mainland, causing them to retain some Mirage aircraft and Roland missiles for defense."
[9] La familia Mirage, Aeroespacio, Fuerza Aerea Argentina, ISSN 0001-9127, "Los M III debían defender el territorio continental argentino de posibles ataques de los bombarderos Vulcan de la RAF, brindar escolta a los cazabombarderos de la FAA, e impedir los ataques de aviones de la Royal Navy y de la RAF sobre las Malvinas." ("The M III would defend the Argentine mainland against possible attacks by Vulcan bombers from the RAF, providing escort of fighter bombers to the FAA, and to prevent attacks by aircraft of the Royal Navy and RAF on the Falklands.")

Two are American articles quoting Argentine sources, the last is the offical Argentine Air Force magazine. Funnily enough you are aware of these, seeing as you've seen them before on the Black Buck article. But again the point has been answered again and again and again. And still you keep trying to remove it. The comments are sourced, three sources saying the same thing. Now stop trying to expunge material from Wikipedia to satisfy your POV. This discussion is finished. Justin talk 21:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And I went back and looked at the article again, yes I made a mistake that the party landed on March 19 included Astiz. So what, you were at that point trying to remove the fact that the party had been infiltrated by the Argentine military. It was that was the key point. Justin talk 21:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for all this mess Justin. Next time promise I will try to be more specific. Would be ok if we make the small change in BB too please ?. thanks --Jor70 (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Georgias...and something more ;)

Hi Jor70, and thanks for thinking of me to create an article about the Argentine occupation of Georgias on 3/4/82. I think such article could be potentially contentious, given the fact that at least two articles (Events leading to the Falklands War and 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands) already deal with the issue.

We are risking a point of view (POV) fork claim by some users.

My personal view is that an article on Georgias is perfectly acceptable as per Related articles; I think, however, that a discussion about the notability of the subject and the need of this article is in the agenda.

The Argentine action in Stanley on April 2 was a clean-one; despite the death of Giachino and the attack against one of the Amtracs, the Amphibious Commandos hit the resistance main points: Moody Brook and Government House. This pincer movement thwarted the Marine's plan to break to the camp and force the Argentines to face further military operations (probably costly both in human and political terms). The British commanders, Gov. Hunt and Major Norman, were surprised despite the high alert, and the shock and confussion created by the commandos prompted their capitulation. At Georgias, things were quite different. There was overconfidence in the Argentine Navy and a desire of revenge among the Marines. My opinion is that the occupation of Gritvyken was the first shoot-to-kill engagement of the war and ended in a pyrric victory for our guys. Thus, no doubt this issue deserves a page apart.

Some points of interest are: the unexpected British resistance, the first naval vessel damaged in the conflict (ARA Guerrico), the first aircraft shotdown and the first member of the British military wounded in action. Too many "first" to be ignored, I guess :) . Un abrazo y gracias.

P/D:Lo veo duro, pero ojalá que el Gordo y el Muñeco se destapen el Domingo ;)--Darius (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi All, didn't remember that the Guerrico was damaged in the war. Was that with a "Carl Gustav" shot by the Royal Marines? By the way, I support creation of an article about actions in the Georgias, if there is enough material to justify it (and avoiding duplication with existing articles).
Cheers, DPdH (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think is really necessary . There are already many battle related articles created (included their own landing Operation Paraquet) and as Darius already said is has many firsts. The April 3 landing itself is not covered neither at Events leading to the Falklands War#Invasion nor 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands. A witness story is here [10]. On the other hand, a British friend of mine fwd me this [11] which you can see is from a week ago and their still do not know nothing from the argentine side. --Jor70 (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You can add this [12], this [13] and this [14] to your list of references as well. Its also well covered in Freedman. No offence intended but the article referring to the "Gallant" Guerrico a warship armed with a 100 mm gun, 40 mm gun, 20 mm cannon, .50 Brownings againts 22 Royal Marines armed with SLR, an LMG, a smattering of LAW 72 and an Carl Gustav and no they were not in a heavily fortified position, they were in improvised slit trenches is hardly balanced. I'm all for hearing both sides of the story but lets be objective about it eh? Justin talk 14:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, this is what Im suggesting here: a well balanced article just like all the others, (not about an epic battle of 22 vs "hundreds" of argentines) about the gallant guerrico, her intervention was needed in order to avoid both sides countless casualties. Did she not enter the bay to show her guns, putting herself at a target in the process, other would be the final killed number. --Jor70 (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

And I wasn't suggesting a narrative of an epic battle either but that article you refer to was frankly ridiculous. Regarding the gallant Guerrico, unnecessarily exposing the ship to hostile fire was frankly incompetent. Justin talk 15:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

why ridiculous ? we could say the same then of the dailymail untold story. seen retrospectively a few days on drydock avoid an unknown end and anyway we should point out facts no opinions (Im not referring yours, everyones). --Jor70 (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps its a cultural thing but when people do incredibly stupid things in the British military we don't tend to write articles about their gallantry. In the same circumstances a Royal Navy officer would have been court martialed. And you seemed to be promoting an article that was praising the gallant Guerrico. Anyway, this largely appears to be a misunderstanding so shall we just draw a line under it and move on? Justin talk 10:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Jor70, I tend to agree with you but not this time ;). Not knowing the circumstances, I assume that exposing a warship to shore fire without proper recce of enemy defenses is a bit dumb, not gallant. But again, I'd know first-hand accounts to know why the Guerrico exposed herself. and this is not a forum... 8( Cheers, DPdH (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As Justin said, let see where the article research take us, hopefully it will clarify what really happended there for all of us. --Jor70 (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I too must express my concerns over using the "gallant Guerrico" source. For that matter I think we should avoid any language like "gallant" etc, just stick to chronological explanation of events and not try to interpret what was going through the minds of the individuals present. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Argentina-Mongolia relations...

Hi Jor70! Obviously we're watching the same channel... You was faster than me to remove the section about Argentina-Mongolia relations! Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sad news...

I remember Captain Bonzo as one of the few Argentine commanders who deserved a special mention during the war. The training and discipline he imposed among Belgranos crew was the key factor to prevent a heavier toll. A must-to-read: 1093 tripulantes del Crucero ARA General Belgrano. Editorial Sudamericana, 1991. ISBN 950070739X. Requiescat in pace. Thank you, Jor70.--Darius (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, would Captain Bonzo be notable enough to deserve a brief wikiarticle? If so, which would be the best biographical sources & references? Cheers, DPdH (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Phillipi's son on Flickr

Nice page. Some of the pics are public domain in Argentina, since these were published in the 1985 book Exocet by journalist Emilio Villarino (ISBN 9501001164). Villarino's work deals with CANA activities, notably with the operational history of the Super Etendarts. Good to see a portrait of Tte. Márquez, killed after sinking HMS Ardent; he was from Mar del Plata (like me) and he's one of the 13 fallen remembered in the Memorial here (along with Giachino and five members of Gada 601). A cousin of mine, from Bahía Blanca -my uncle is a retired ARA petty officer- was a schoolmate of the daughter of Rodolfo Castro Fox, commander of Phillipi and the other guys. Thank you for the link. --Darius (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

yes I read exocet in the 80s. what particulary surprised me from the site were Rio Grande pics which I had never seen before --Jor70 (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

South Georgia's article done!

Hi Jor, mission complete :). I finished the first version of 1982 invasion of South Georgia. Please, send me comments about, and of course, feel free to edit the page. Cheers and enjoy it.--Darius (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Gracias, Jor: el mérito también es tuyo, ya que vos fuiste el que sugirió el tema. I agree with you that we need a map, but the only one I know is in Mayorga's book. Not in public domain at all, but a good source for a pgn file (I haven't the tools, nor the skills for that).

Certainly, a previous special forces recce would have changed things, but Trombetta was urged to achieve his mission before a predictable UN resolution calling for a cease-fire. I guess that was the main cause of the mismanagement of the situation.

You're right regarding Astiz; he was not properly a commando, I have read elsewhere an interview to a former member of the ARA where Astiz is labeled just a "naval gunner". On the other hand, I heard that besides Astiz, there were tactical divers (Buzos Tácticos) under his command. Anyway, it's disgraceful to have such a coward criminal even mentioned on a 1982 War article, but...es lo que hay :(. Thanks again and happy mayday!!.--Darius (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Until we found a realiable source that some of them were commandos we should put a cn (or whatever) tag

The ARA Bahia Paraiso article is next ? ;) [15] notice the 2 seakings still on the hangar --Jor70 (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

HMS Coventry (D118)

Hi thank for you comments on my talk page. I would really like to get this article straight & have a completely balanced view of the events surrounding this ship. I have always been dubious about the claims for the two 9th May Skyhawks & bow to your superior knowledge. My reference to three 1,000 lb bombs was taken from a very old (& biased) account that I know could be wrong. The position that HMS Coventry was-in made her much closer to the mainland but not that close.

It would be an honour for us to move this article closer to an accurate historical account together, instead of the usual rhetoric that follows events such as those in 1982

Hi Tentheagle, if you need any help, I got Coventry's sister 42, Cardiff, up to "featured status" and even the main page. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Love to be able to do this as I believe this ship & it's "true" Falkland history needs to be in the Public domain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentheagle (talk • contribs) 13:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jor would you please review my changes to the 25th May attack, as I believe I may have gained a more accurate picture of the events. Thanks Steve Bowen (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are able to understand Spanish at [16] timeframe 8:55 you have pilot Barrionuevo interview: he said seen his leader (Mariano Velasco) bombs explode less than a meter over her water line --Jor70 (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I don't (My Loss I know) In a previous correction you told me that each Aircraft only Carried one Bomb, so if two hit the ship It would have to be one from Each Aircraft.Steve Bowen (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry the misunderstanding, i was trying to point out [17] that A-4 could not carry 3 1000 lbs bomb , their ordenance was 1 of 1000 lbs or 3 of 227 kgs. After listening Barrionuevo seems they carry 3 BRP Mk82 each plane in this case. So my referred correction was wrong --Jor70 (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I recheck again and the official FAA page said vulcanos (carballo and rinke) DID carry 1 mk17 of 1000 lbs each [18] but nothing about zeus (Velasco and Barrionuevo) which actually were who made the hits. During the youtube interview, Barrionuevo clearly mentions the "leader' bombS" so supposedly they have a different configuration than vulcanos --Jor70 (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Argentina miliatry moves

Just in case you didn't get it before, see Matt's reply to your message about my article renames. As it said there, I was doing a history merge so that all the edits to the article could be in one place. Graham87 00:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

ABACC

Hi Jor70! I saw the edit you did on Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials... the Brazilian equivalent would be CNEN, but the article doesn't exist - I'll create it. I'm also planning on expanding the article Argentina-Brazil relations. Limongi ^(talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

great! --Jor70 (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Defence/Defense

There is no difference its British/American English spelling variations. As per WP:ENGVAR, British English is preferred on the Falklands War. Hope that helps. Justin talk 21:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

IP Edit

Cheers missed that one. Regards. Justin talk 20:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Felix Artuso: Sí Jor, amerita...

Como va eso...Yes, I think we should have some sort of stub about the incident, or at least a brief bio. In my teen years -I think in 1985- I knew one of his camarades at my father's shop, but he didn't say anything about Artuso. I only remember him talking about the RMs cutting up rough, and how the Santa Fe's crew scuttled the submarine. I heard sometime ago that he apparently died in 1993. As for Artuso, it's poignant to see her grave over there in South Georgia, his family still lives here in Mar del Plata, as far as I know... I guess the incident complies with WP:NOTABILITY, however we should discuss that carefully. Cheers.--Darius (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jor70, no worries for the mistake, good excuse to get in touch again. ;) Who is Felix Artuso? Cheers, DPdH (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Falklands War

I've done a copy edit on your Falklands War contribution to make it easier to understand. As an aside do you think Anaya's picture adds to that section? Just a thought.

BTW regarding Artuso, would a paragraph on the ARA Santa Fe article be sufficient, rather than creating a dedicated article? Justin talk 20:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit, I quickly cut & paste a reference before it get remove it ;). Regarding Anaya's picture I think we need to clearly show people who was the starter of this and I cant imagine a better place. We do not need to give galtieri all the credit , I sincerely do not know how many times (if any) Anaya is mentioned on British bibliographies. Artuso was notable enough to merit some kind of recognition but as you said a whole article surely would end on a stub so a subsection on santa fe would be ok --Jor70 (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

TBH its probably personal prejudice, he was probably more responsible for the war and the deaths of a 1000 young men than anyone else. But I guess that shouldn't get in the way. Justin talk 21:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I believe that if a person has enough notability and there is plenty of information then an article on its own should be justified. Why not check with Wikiproject Biographies? Regards, DPdH (talk) 09:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would qualify as notable enough to justify an individual article. His only real notability sadly was the unfortunate incident that resulted in his death. Regards. Justin talk 13:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Revert

As explanation for my revert, that information is out of date. The British thought they'd sunk that ship at the time, they don't still make the same claim (unlike I might add some of your countrymen who remain convinced that Invincible was sunk). Regards, Justin talk 13:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

that was too quick, I was here --Jor70 (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

historical pictures - OK!

Hi again! Yes, the site seems useful. Did you check about licensing for using the pics in it? Regards, DPdH (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hercules vs. Hercules

Como va eso, Jor? Sorry for the delay, but I am quite busy this week. Nice find. My first memories of the bomber Hercules came from my uncle -then a member of the ARA- I think it was two or three years after the war. He told me that the bombs were dropped from the open hatch (as claimed in the link you provided). The Pucará pylons, however, are entirely new stuff for me. I read about the Canberras raid several years ago, but I learned about their taking off from MDQ early this year.

It's OK for me to have an article on the incident here, but I guess we should define its scope. What we want? an article wrote from the perspective of the isolated attack on the tanker, or focused on the Argentine modified C-130?. Cheers.--Darius (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

no te preocupes!, I wasn't suggesting an article about this (I think that would be too much) I was just showing you those nice pics! but I think their yesterday act could be one ! :-D --Jor70 (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

HMS Invincible conspiricies again

Jor, could you take a look at this discussion at Talk:HMS Invincible (R05)#Sources in spanish? It regards this edit by User:Argentino. I'd appreciatte your input, as you are bilingual, and can give an objective view of the source being proposed by this user. Note that I do accept Spanish sources as long as they meet the reliability requirements of EN.WP, and if comparable sources in English ar not available. Gracias! - BilCat (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

what happened? Sorry to see you go. Hope to see you here again later, if possible. - BilCat (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

very busy with personal things. thanks for asking --Jor70 (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Recepción detrás amigo! Ryan4314 (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If you mean welcome back that would be Bienvenido de regreso and not I get it from your back! ;) anyway unfortunately I have not much free pc time for the moment --Jor70 (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, Babel fish! ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Seasons Greetings, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Justin talk 23:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and same there --Jor70 (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words

You should have said something in the thread at the talk page page, where I explained the "weasel words" tags. It has been there since more than a month ago. MBelgrano (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was cut from the internet and Im using a temp conection --Jor70 (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Falklands War

I've made most of your changes with suitable changes for grammar and English usage. I missed out one, as I didn't think it added to the article and included a certain amount of original research. Let me know what you think. Regards, Justin talk 13:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. but you leave out one of the major consequences of the war: The Royal Navy retained their carriers and amphibious units for a expeditionary capability (plenty of sources for that) this is so important as Thatcher votes. Second, we dont need to be military experts to know that the usage of SSNs as EW was not because of the failure of Mikado, the sentence need to be fixed or at least rewritten. And seems you forgot to remove the 1st instance of La Prensa mention. --Jor70 (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

La Prensa was a mistake, I put it back rather than removing it. I'll look at Mikado again as that was what I considered included some OR as there was a comment on the success. Justin talk 15:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, I hope. Justin talk 17:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Still think La Prensa mention has more sense and timing on the other location but whatever. About the SSNs perhaps leaving just Five Royal Navy nuclear submarines lined up, submerged, on the edge of Argentina’s 12-mile territorial limit to provide early warning of air strikes against British forces would be enough due Mikado is explain later and the subs would still be there with or without the SAS raid in order to control ARA ships --Jor70 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem either way regarding the mention of La Prensa, feel free to move it. Note sure I'd agree with you on Mikado but feel free to propose an alternative. Justin talk 20:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy to copy edit, though it doesn't need much. I would suggest you add a couple of wikilinks to other articles or you my face a DRV because of notability. Justin talk 09:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats done, have a look and make sure I haven't inadvertently changed the meaning. Justin talk 23:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! not completely sure but I add King George Bay in Bahia Rey ref. --Jor70 (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Review

A deletion review that you may have an interest in: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 8#File:HMS Ambuscade (F172).jpg. Justin talk 23:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)