User talk:Cloudaoc/Archive 3

2012-2013

stop UN-doing, im editing in good faith for this article
seriously there's nothing sinister about my edits, im just correcting the english and just mentioning who wrote what about the repaso. regrettably all the references about the repaso are from peruvian sources...therefore its imperative to point this out in order to protect the integrity of this article. You labelling my edits as vandelism is very obnoxious and makes me think you just want to protect a certain point of view. Since im not disputing the information or making any deletions my edits are justified, if you wish to go further with this be my guest--IggyAU (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sir, you must understand than the War of the Pacific is a historic article, not an historiographic one, there is current a discussion about this issue in its talk page, you can't affirm than the repase was only an Peruvian-sided statement, because it was A FACT, its denial by many Chilean sources do not imply than the repase never happen. You must state your arguments in the talk page and just made the addition only when consensus has been achieved, not before. You have been warned before, and if you insist in this behavior, I will report you to the administrators. What do you think about me is irrelevant, and I would not tolerate any accusation or implication about my participation in Wikipedia, I have 6 years doing this sir, you are just joining, I suggest than you must understand the Wikipedia policies, and follow the procedure previously stated to made any contribution to the article. Greetings. -- Ian (CloudAOC)  | Talk  15:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ian, thank you for trying to help Iggy understand the policies of Wikipedia, but at this time it would be best if you please give the matter a temporary rest and stop reverting his edits. I am telling you this so that you avoid falling for the 3RR. I have replied to him on the article, asking him to provide sources which support his position. If he continues disrupting the article, then I will notify the administrators (and there you will be able to state your position as well). But, once again, for the time being save yourself the trouble of getting into problems with the administrators. Best of wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 17:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As to Iggy, which I am sure will read this, your edits are not justified. Please use the article's talk page to justify your position.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 17:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I will take the matter to the 3RR/Edit Warring board.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 03:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: WoTP
Cloudaoc, don't reply to him. He's obviously WP:GAMING, and by bringing forth a series of "issues" he is trying to justify his tags on the article. He has already broken the WP:3RR rule in the article.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 18:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but, that's all? Just do nothing? We can't contact an administrator to stop him from doing this? He isn't already broke enough Wikirules to be sanctioned? I really don't understand... -- Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk  18:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you fall for his game and start replying to his "issues", he will simply continue to push his POV on the matter. Yes, he can and will be sanctioned (I will make a 3RR report on him sometime today), what would be best is if you helped me with the 3RR report.
 * For example, could you please help me find the statement by Alexh where he mentions that Keysanger's listing of "issues" actually disrupts the talk page instead of discussing a point one-by-one? That is an important point made by the mediator, Alex.
 * Also, if you could find the consensus on the points he is again re-stating, that would help out as well.
 * At this time, the best thing we can do is use the WP rules to prevent Keysanger from disrupting the article. If we argue with him, that will only lead us to nothing. Just as he is gaming the system, we have to use the system's rules and punishments to get him to stop.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 19:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Keysanger at the 3RR noticeboard
Cloudaoc, I have submitted Keysanger's behavior at the 3RR noticeboard. Here is the link:. If you would like to add anything, please do so whenever you have time. Hopefully the admin who reviews the case will provide us with more information as to how to handle Keysanger's behavior.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 02:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Marshall, I'm afraid than there no other option than play Keysanger's game. So, at least for me, I'm not going to give up the article to him. I'll really appreciate your support. Regards-- Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk  19:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As of now I have some other matters to handle, but I will keep an eye on the discussion and step in to them if necessary. I believe that Keysanger simply listed those things in the talk page as a way to support the tags on the article. Aside from that, he won't make a move on the matter unless we make a move on things. If you want to tackle the issues, you have my support, but just remember to counter Keysanger's claims with direct evidence (and do what you can to avoid falling into any of his games of turning things personal).
 * Also, remember to use the past discussions (which are recent and, therefore, still relevant) in case he tries to bring back any of the old points already discussed. Best of wishes.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 19:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Callao
I'm confused by what you mean (I find no one named "Durero"). I can research the subject a little better and provide a more detailed "results" part if that's what you would like? From the talk page, I get that there is some controversy as to what ultimately happened. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 03:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have the following source in my library: William Columbus Davis, The Last Conquistadores: The Spanish Intervention in Peru and Chile, 1863-1866. Athens, University of Georgia Press, 1950.
 * Davis was a fantastic historian, truly an expert in Latin American history (Harvard graduate, needless to say). If you haven't read the book, I highly recommend it. Davis provides a good account of the Chincha Islands War, with plenty of sources and analysis.
 * On page 318 he writes: "Despite their relatively large number of casualties, the battle was conceded to be a great victory for the Peruvians."
 * Given the reliability of Davis, I see no reason why he should be doubted. Not that it matters much, but he is neither Peruvian or Spanish. I'd like to read what sources the Spanish users hold to verify their position. It seems to me that for the Spaniards to "claim" a victory is not a justification to write a wrong result. The result should read along the lines of: "Peruvian victory, Callao repels invasion largely undamaged; Spanish fleet withdraws, but claims success." However, I need to look over more information on the Davis source. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 05:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:FreeLibyaAF Mi25.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:FreeLibyaAF Mi25.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

War of the Pacific
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:BAP Puno 2010.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:BAP Puno 2010.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Peruvian Air Force MiG-29
Are you sure???? The initial FAP MiG-29 are of the 9-13 version, as you say, but this version is known as MiG-29S (with dorsal hump). These are not of the initial MiG-29 model "Fulcrum-A" without hump (9-12). What are your sources?
 * Absolutely, and you are wrong, the 9.13S is the MiG-29S, and was intended for export without restrictions, the 9.13 was only for the VVS, the final soviet version of the aircraft than entered into production, replacing the 9.12 version (which was sold to Yugoslavia) and also named "MiG-29", and just that, remember, "Fulcrum" was the NATO name for the aircraft. About the sources, one is Jane's (do you have access to that source?), several publications of the Peruvian Air Force and PeruDefensa & Seguridad, the main peruvian magazine about defence. Please avoid to make changes in the article without being sure about them. Greetings.-- Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk  02:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Peru article FA Review
Hello Ian. I would greatly appreciate it if you could please review the Featured article candidates/Peru national football team/archive3. It's a fun article read (if you like the sport), and a review (and support) would be welcome at this point. Regards.--01:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Ian. Hopefully now that Keysanger has "retired" the editing of War of the Pacific articles will have less conflict.
 * That said, I hope to find you at a good time friend. It has been half a year, but the Peru national football team article is still in the FA review process. This new nomination might have a good chance a passing, but again lacks review votes. Your comments would be much welcomed. Thanks!-- MarshalN20 T al k 01:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Marshall! Sorry by the long absence, but I was really busy with my new job, nevertheless, I promise would review the article this weekend, we have still work to do with the battle of Callao article, but we can discuss it later. Regards!-- Ian (CloudAOC) | Talk  23:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)