User talk:Estaurofila
| Estaurofila |
Welcome!
Hello, Estaurofila, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Deporte[edit]
Hello Estaurofila, how are you. I'm sorry if i did wrong, i try not to revert much here because of my lack of knowledge of the language, but in this case, where do we go for the right etimology, taking into account that the Real academia de la lengua is the official institution of the grammar and lexicography of the Spanish language. I dont know if you mean that after the investigation they found out that the word derived from the Latin, or you mean that they just made it look it derived from the Latin skipping the real source, which in this case it would be the English word sport. I also dont understand what the relation of the Spanish word deporte with Spanglish is, as this is the nominal subject of the article and the sentence was explaining that this word is an spanicized word from the English sport, which in my opinion would be an interesting information, but deflected from the goal, as it reads in coatrack:The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant and biased material there. Would in this case and by that logic, the rule of thumb be, per example, to include the word library as Spanglish? Could be, i dont know. Anayway, i'll be more cautious next time as my intention is to help not to cause any trouble. Thanks for your comprehension and excuse my poor English. Rafax (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Continental Shelf Border Dispute[edit]
http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_cub_51_2009.htm
^I thought this dispute was settled in 2009, no? Cuba submitted a document detailing the boundaries of the continental shelf. The CIA Factbook also no longer list this as a dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.214.89 (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- The CIA Factbook is not an accurate document. In many cases its information is too general and, in some others, is too biased (verbigratia: in the case of Cuba). The submission by Cuba follows the proceedings of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. After the Cuban submission of its claimed boundaries of the continental shelf, United States of America and Mexico presented theirs, which in some areas of the Gulf of Mexico overlaped those claimed by Cuba. Therefore the differences should be settled by way of a three party negotiation.--Estaurofila (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It is very nice to have those with expertise and research skills such as yourself involved in topics such as Territorial Disputes, an interest of yours, I see. Thanks very much for deleting Clipperton Island from that page. That page is a difficult one, because, some editors feel that every "dispute" ever mentioned in any blog or rant belongs there, whereas it should be limited to just those with official government pronouncements/claims. So it tends to get non-dispute "disputes" listed.
Changing topic....What is your opinion regarding listing maritime disputes (as above) on this page? One could argue that, since over half of all maritime boundaries in the world (more than that if you draw distinctions with continental shelf boundaries, water column boundaries, etc.) are not settled, and thus technically in "dispute", one could list several hundred of those here. Should maritime boundaries not be included? (with exceptions for those that actually involve land/islands such as Northern Limit Line)?
Since the article title says "territory", then EEZ's and Continental Shelf disputes should not be included, correct? (as they do not involve "territorial" disputes or "territorial waters" (with 12 nm)....Beyond 12nm, it's just sovereign rights (economic, mostly), not "sovereignty" or "territorial rights". Should the article be defined as "land territory" disputes only? Separate page for maritime disputes? Just some thoughts. DLinth (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can't really argue with what you said (over on my page.) Somewhat like the avid birders...some are "splitters", some are "groupers"(?) insofar as species. It might be most sensible to have separate dispute list pages on, as you said, "settled (historical) disputes; disputes between a state and its sub national entities; or between sub national entities"? Maritime dispute list separate (from this list) too??DLinth (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hungarian language in Balkans[edit]
Hi Estaurofila. I have made an edit to your contribution on Balkans concerning Uralic languages spoken in Vojvodina. Indeed Hungarian is a prominent language in that region but Vojvodina itself is a part of Central Europe and not the Balkans. However, because an overflow of Hungarian speakers are to be found in Belgrade and towns in northern Central Serbia (proper Balkan), I have left the main part of your text in tact - only Vojvodina was removed. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)