User talk:Andrés Djordjalian

Thank you
Hola Andrés, I hadn't had the time to thank you for your involvement in the ANI case that ended up with me and WCM topic banned from Falkland related articles, so thank you :) I hope this experience won't discourage from contributing, you are clearly a very knowledgeable editor on this topic and it would be a great loss for WP if it did. But this is how WP works sometimes. When I was blocked on the false accusation of sock-puppetry, and admin quoted User:NE Ent who some time ago said something which should be considered a fundamental truth here in WP. Let me copy/paste that for you: It's important to realize WP does not have a justice system. It has a "most of us just want to edit and if someone causes too much aggravation they're going to get blocked because no one wants to deal with it" system. In any case, I hold no grudges. Good luck to you and hopefully our paths will cross again in the future. Un abrazo. Gaba (talk)  13:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hola Gaba. NP, sorry for the ban, you did not deserve it, and thanks for all your work.


 * I think the case perfectly illustrates how this environment differs from a scholarly one, which is far superior for producing reliable content. Important requirements in academic production seem to be valued less that being succinct and cheerful, making friends and editing a variety of pages. This was pretty visible when you were observed that you had to accept that others may disagree when you question the usage of a source. It sounded to me like the scholarly equivalent of disregarding an accusation of rape and admonishing the victim instead, because of the clothes she wears. There is not just a difference in formal requirements but in the weights people attribute to virtues and problems. The latter are frequently as effectual as the former. Sometimes even more.


 * I see that you are a doctor in physics. I work part-time at UBA and doing research. This is a different environment, closer to a discussion at a pub I guess. I would be kicked out, and rightfully so, if I demanded scholarly rigor at a pub, because people meet there just for fun and I would be spoiling some of it. Not far from what has been happening here, IMO. There would be nothing wrong with that if visitors did not believe that the reliability of this content resembles that of material that is peer reviewed or editorialized by reputed institutions.


 * I will go on editing, though less motivated obviously. I hope you stay around and keep in touch, maybe return to the articles sometime. Abrazo! -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree with your assessment of the creative environment here in WP. Specially in sensible topics where a skewed consensus has been forced through time by a minority of very vocal editors, stepping in to challenge said status quo (even with innumerable reliable sources to back every edit) is by default seen as disruptive by several editors/admins. This is exacerbated by the inherent bias in WP by which long-time editors (no matter the record on their behavior) are treated with far more leniency than new editors. Anyway, I thank you again for your kind words and I of course welcome your decision to continue contributing to articles in WP. A return to the topic is an open question :) Un abrazo! Gaba  (talk)  20:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Information and sources for Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute
This is a Transcript of a Press Conference held by Ambassador Sir Mark Lyall Grant in response to the Foreign Minister of Argentina’s Press Conference on the Falkland Islands. For reliable sources for the 1850 convention of settlement would you agree the following source is acceptable?

Also is this comment by Ban Ki-moon worty of going under "International and regional views" --Truthsir789 (talk) 04:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Truthsir789. I believe that Grant's statement can be used as a (primary) source for the current official British position regarding the 1850 treaty, but when I referred to the lack of reliable sources I meant neutral studies, as required if we are to put those statements in WP voice. I don't oppose the addition of that source to back a description of the British position regarding this matter, such as the ones already present throughout WP. Bear in mind, however, that some articles on WP currently make a stronger statement than Grant is making there, because they state that the the islands were awarded by the treaty via uti possidetis, while Grant simply interprets that the treaty acknowledges no pending dispute, which is not quite the same thing.


 * Regarding Ban's statement, I don't think it has sufficient WP:WEIGHT for that section, where even the presence of the official position of the second world power was questioned. Ban is not supporting British sovereignty there. Let me explain.


 * Argentina doesn't disagree with people having the right to decide their own future. If I traveled to Great Britain, got myself a parcel of land and claimed that it shall become independent territory under the sovereignty of myself (King Andy), you would correctly argue that I'm not entitled to it. Yet you will not be denying my right to decide my own future, as I could participate in Argentine democracy, perhaps in British too. I wouldn't be an oppressed individual. Argentina reckons ample rights to the islanders as citizens of dual Argentine and British nationality, including political rights. It just doesn't recognize that the islanders are to define which country shall be sovereign over that territory. In other words, that they are a group entitled to "external self-determination". The UN has backed this position.


 * The interview referred by MercoPress is available here. Following a question on de-colonization, Ban was asked if it wasn't a "bad message" that permanent members of the Security Council failed to comply with UN resolutions. That's a seemingly uncomfortable question, from which I would expect a rather evasionary reply. Ban replies that he doesn't see those members violating relevant resolutions. He explains that the main criterion by which UN de-colonization operates is that people obtain a fair share of political rights. That is not the question under dispute, as both sides agree to that. Hence, as I understand it, he means that the matter would be different if a Security Council member was committing a violation of that main criterion (i.e., to a relevant resolution).


 * This is not as strong a statement as it would seem to someone making an doubtful interpretation influenced by the "deciding their own future equals external self-determination" discourse. And it originates from no more than a UN Secretary General using his political waist to respond to an uncomfortable question during an interview. Given that editors have rejected even carefully-crafted positions from important national and supra-national bodies, and that Ban's response is particularly open to misinterpretation, I don't see it as WP material. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Gracias
Andres, I know you did not mean anything wrong with the userspace information you provided. I thank you for being so helpful in providing detailed information (page text & numbers). On a personal level, I think you have every right to keep using your userspace to present your case. However, I ask that you please follow Basalisk's recommendation and use the Talk:Falkland Islands page to conduct any further discussions on the topic. Sinceramente.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 23:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi . Sure, I will do that and I understand. I'm obviously not happy at this development, though. I just wrote a comment that mentions you where I used the words "scaring off" between quotes. Please let me know if you feel aggravated by those words and I'll delete them as soon as I can (or you can do it yourself). I couldn't find a better replacement to make my point. I guess that you can see why I used them but if they make you feel uncomfortable then it's not worth it. ¡Gracias! -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * , on second thought, I sought better words and changed the sentence before waiting for your response. I hope the current allusion doesn't bother you. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)