Talk:Detente bala

Challenge
I challenge the truthfulness of this article. First of all, was there even a third war of Bohemia? Second, I don't think there was a General Gottenheimer. Even though Detente Bala does mean "stop bullet" in Spanish. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;)  22:00, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The Carlist part is right. About the rest, I don't know. --Error 02:57, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The rest is absolute crap...&mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 02:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * From everything I read around, most of this looks like crap. There is no third war of bohemia to my knowledge, and some other stuff . &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 16:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * From the article on amulets: "War and other dangerous activities make the participants try to get the most luck they can. Carlist soldiers wore a medal of the Sacred Heart of Jesus with the inscription ¡Detente bala! ('Stop, bullet!')." I don't know enough Spanish to read the Spanish pages I've found on Google with the phrase. I don't know anything about whether there was a Bohemian war involved. --Closeapple 08:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone care to take the out and figure out whether or not this page is total garbbage or merely just crap?

Smith Jones 11:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Smith Jones 11:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have never heard of the third war of bohemia, I suspect this is fabricated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.209.6.40 (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC).


 * In that case, then this article must be destroyed. Smith Jones 05:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, only the second part was being challenged. I've adapted the article to reflect the (Spanish) source given as a reference. If someone with better Spanish comes along, please check. AvB &divide; talk  12:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Patches of cloth with the phrase around a Sacred Heart of Jesus were worn on the chest as a protection." `Smith Jones 22:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * think that this parragraph if soo vague because its doesnt give a date or a citation or a reference oa ny indicationg htat it wasnt just made up by the article author.


 * I don't think it's at all vague, and it's confirmed by the source given in the article. Please review earlier comments and also look at the references in the article before commenting on the talk page. As remarked above, I had already checked the source given there, Detente in the Diccionario de la Real Academia Española. In fact I did more research and deleted everything I could not reference. The removed part was quite suspicious as commented by others. AvB &divide; talk  10:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * i cant speak spanish sorry. i agree that yhe information is confirmed but it doesnt given information about specific instances where this was used or the cultur. all it says is that they used it to MAKE JESUS STOP the bullets but that isnt specific enougfh. maybe the article should go on wikitionary instead of wikipedia since its a stub. Smith Jones 04:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:Notability and . AvB &divide; talk  05:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * i didnt say it was non-notable i just said that it doesnt give enough detail to be encylcopedia. also, the google seraches are mostly mrirors of wikipedia and according to wikiepedia it cant sue itself as a sources for itw articles. also, some of the websites repeat the fake information that we remmoved arlier. Smith Jones 14:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mirror sites will catch up with Wikipedia, some almost immediately, others lag behind, and Google also takes some time to update its Wikipedia indexing. The amount of detail is not a reason to leave information out, especially since so many editors find the article clearly encyclopedic. All we have to do is make sure the information is in keeping with applicable rules, such as WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. The article is marked as a stub in order to invite editors to expand the article if they can find additional sources. But you are free to list the article for AfD (if you click on the relevant links given in the welcome note(s) on your talk page you will find out more about the AfD process. Or do you know it already?) Nevertheless, I personally think such an AfD would be a waste of time. AvB &divide; talk  14:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * no deletion is just thing that it wuod work best on Wiktionary instead of wikipedia since its more like a difiniton of a word than anything else. Smith Jones 03:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed the speedy deletion tag. If you do not agree, please indicate on this talk page which criteria the article is supposed to fail. Thanks. AvB &divide; talk  20:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree because of criteira : "Transwikied articles. Any article that has been discussed at Articles for Deletion (et al), where the outcome was to transwiki, and where the transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded. " this page now exist son wiktionary.com. Smith Jones 20:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * THEREFORE the artile should be destroyed. Smith Jones 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Smith Jones 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If there's been such an AfD result, the closing admin should have deleted the article. Please post the link to the AfD here. Thanks, AvB &divide; talk  21:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * NO you arent undestanding what i'm trying to say here. i warned you Feb. 13 that this article woudl work best on Wiktionary and you ddin't seem to have any problem with that so i transferred it all to wikitonary and put this aritcle up for deletion because its redunadant. the reason i did this was because of the cretieria that i mentioned above the article cannot exist in wo palces are once. Smith Jones 21:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * do you agree now that the article whould be deleted? Smith Jones 21:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No. I don't know what else I could say to you. This article does not fulfill any speedy deletion criteria, period. You could try an AfD. If you don't believe me, ask others. Try WP:ANI or WP:DR. I believe you are here to help, yet I do not see how that could possibly work if you continue like this. AvB ÷ talk  21:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * there is NOTHING WRONG WIth the article but i have created a nother version here that is better for the article. look over it and tell me why you insist on breaking wikipedia rules by having 2 duplicate articles on two wikis. Smith Jones 02:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are the one who is breaking Wikipedia rules. Over the past few weeks I have spent some two hours repairing damage caused by you. I have also tried to help you understand the basics of editing Wikipedia. Apparently I have failed (Avb raising hands in despair). For the last time, your options here are: WP:DR, WP:AfD, WP:ANI. AvB ÷ talk  11:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sagrado Corazón de Jesús - Detente - Prayer.svg
 * Sagrado Corazón de Jesús - Detente.svg