User talk:Dentren/Archive 3

Chilean settlements
Hi just a heads up. FOr the infoboxes can you please add the country it is in e.g Chile and only add -4 and -3 not -4 hours etc in the boxes as they are wrongly red linked currently. Stabdard infoboxes always state the country it is in. You start with region which should be the second division. I know it may be obvious to you and some people but it just helps clear any confusion thanks.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

German Chilean page
You are not showing good faith or respecting the contributions that are made by other editors in this project; I was expanding the article and before I finished referencing you reverted what I had done with the following statement:
 * removed info about suposed genocide.. please put it back when there are sources for this claim

I advised you that I had placed a reference and then I further referenced my edit from a source from an Oxford University publication.

You once again reverted my edits with the comment:
 * removed not reliable sources, and changed genocide againt massacre. it was not in the intereset of the spanish to kill whole tribes of indians, they rather prefered them to work in the encomienda

The aforementioned statement - that you made to revert my edits - sounds rather childish and it is devoid of any proper understanding of the term genocide.

Before I started to edit this page it didn’t have much information and it was highly inarticulate; it resembled a blog with loosely placed statements that didn’t add to the syntax of sentences or to the logical sequence of information. It resembled a Simple English wikipedia page. I proceeded to translate the page on Deutsch wikipedia which was created with more effort and clarity – in the process I also improved and expanded the information.

I am getting the impression that you don’t want me or other editors to keep contributing to this page which is odd because I don’t see you making any contributions to it other than keeping it in check or reverting or deleting contributions that I have made.

It is better that if you have a problem with the contributions that editors are making to discuss this in the discussion of the page. This is a collaborative open project you can’t just delete or revert what doesn’t appeal to you – issues need to be discussed.

You should engage in discussion before you delete what you don't understand.

If you want to discuss the term "genocide" with me I'll discuss it with you and bring in other editors into the discussion if necessary. _Sincerely, C-klums (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Southermost city section Ushuaia
I've just noticed that you changed the sentence I added (with references) "Currently several tourism businesses offer trips between Ushuaia-Puerto Williams and the surrounding area. [19][20]" ..to..."(More expensive options are offered by the private tourist industry.) [20][21]". Was that really necessary? It isn't part of the "sourthernmost city argument" and I can't see why since my one was just a generic entry to inform people that there is actually a tourist industry servicing both settlements/cities; Why "more expensive" description? several turism companies offered tours that include stop overs in PW and other 'estancias' but all depart from Ushuaia even the ones that come from Punta Arenas. Off course one needed proper passports since one is traveling between two countries. I haven't reversed it but suggest that you do because its not a part of the 'southernmost city' argument and expresses a generic true statement with sources given. Chuckarg33 (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I misread the article there. cheers Chuckarg33 (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Blanco Encalda
Hello. I wanted to let you know that I reverted your move of the HMS Fife (D20) article to Blanco Encalda (destroyer). As per WP:NC-SHIP, this is the correct name of the article. Likewise, the naming convention indicates that Chilean destroyer Blanco Encalada is the correct name for the article that will (hopefully, someday) be written on the ship that served in the Chilean navy. Please let me know if you have any questions or issues. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Chile Cuba Locator.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Chile Cuba Locator.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Pisco
Hi Dentren, I'm not saying that all Peruvian/Chilean editors are unable to use NPOV when editing this page, but it does seem that the majority of edits to this page are biased bordering on vandalism, and that the people making them are from one of the two countries... I notice that you yourself swapped the locations of the Peruvian/Chilean history sections to put Chile first - which could be construed as being biased. --Ozhiker (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

War of the Pacific
Hi: I saw you added a template under that section stating that the destruction of lima was not only made by chilean soldiers but also by peruvian mobs Do you have any sources for that claim? Please respond on the talk page of the article.

Thanks Likeminas (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

War of the Pacific
Sure. Just don't forget to tell the same thing to Tweedledum and Tweedledee.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Beagle Conflict
Hi, this is listed under List of conflicts in the Americas along all peru/ecuador crashes, malvinas, etc giving the idea that was  another continent war. I think we should make clear on the lead (or may be changing the name to dispute, crisis or whatever) to clearly show that was never a shooting war here --Jor70 (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you say about my edit on the lead? Dentren  |  Ta lk  22:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Better, I changed List of conflicts in the Americas according --Jor70 (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

About the map of the Chincha Islands War
Dentren, that map than you made is wrong in the north part of Peru, that territories than you initially assigned to Ecuador always has been Peruvian, not matter what claims the Ecuadorians, in fact is also missed the Leticia territory than once was part of Maynas and now is part of Colombia, your colaborations in Wikipedia must be accurated, and Tumbes is not only a small province, is a province of my country and your map can confuse the readers who needs reliable information from this article: I'm going to remove the map again, and I'll hope than you made the corrections before put it in again. Greetings. --Cloudaoc (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Chan-Chan
Hello! Your submission of Chan-Chan at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Cerro Maltusado
Is there any particular reason that, when you wrote that article about a Chilean mountain, you included a reference to Sofia Loren's breasts? DS (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Local people in Riñihue and Flor del Lago call the two protuding mountains just east of Maltusado fo that. I will try to source that. Dentren  |  Ta lk  07:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Peter Rock (musician)
I have nominated Peter Rock (musician), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Peter Rock (musician). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. pablo hablo. 21:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:OcupArau.JPG
File:OcupArau.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:OcupArau.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Central pullique.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Central pullique.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter Rock
Hi

I've withdrawn the nomination, but I think that the article could use some more information. I have found some biographical stuff about his short career in the early 1960s. Do you know if there is any information (maybe in newspapers or magazines) which covers his TV Career?

Regards

pablo hablo. 20:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Diablada
Hello Dentren,

Ethelred is now attempting to use Wikipedia policy in order to promote his POV on the matter. Now he's incorrectly using sources that claim the dance to have been "spiritually" (Yes, as in "religiously") invented in Potosi, Bolivia. Instead of taking it specifically as a religious matter, Ethelred is now claiming that this "demonstrates" that the dance is Bolivian (I'm not sure where he gets this logic from either). Here's a link where you can compare the two versions,. The key thing is that "anthropologist Freddy Arancibia Andrade" never states that the Diablada as a dance was created in Potosi. There is another source from Nicomedes Santa Cruz that does state that the Diablada could have possibly taken place in Potosi, and I added that in the version I'm proposing; but since that version did not provide a date (like the one for Juli does), it did not seem as reliable (or exact).-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 05:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said before sadly Marshal has a dangerous tendency to see things that aren't there. I never ever wrote the words "demonstrate" or "create" or said anything that Marshal think I said. I just added a second theory and I consider I took special care in my redaction but as you know Marshal took it to the extreme. But if you want to see the part of the discussion where we asked for your opinion is here: ignore the rest I don't think that's relevant. But as I also wrote I'm not going to participate any longer. Thank you I think you're a reasonable person. --Erebedhel (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

War of the Pacific
Are you still interested on impoprving that article? Given the countless number of disputes that usually arise on a contentious subject like that one, I wouldn't be surprised and I'd understand if you don't want to deal with it anymore. But if you still feel like contributing to it, please feel free to come back. Regards, Likeminas (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Complejo Forestal y Maderero Panguipulli
Hello! Your submission of Complejo Forestal y Maderero Panguipulli at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Orlady (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion
I have been thinking about possible solutions to the Diablada problem today and I think that maybe we could try to use a more "formal" procedure. So I'm planning to propose that if anyone makes a change which is reverted, the person whose edition was reverted could open a section explaining what was his intention with that edition, the sources and the original text; then the person who reverted that edition would explain also with sources and no personal attacks or appealing to the WP:TRUTH his reasons trying to make like a list format to avoid making long discussions, making maybe like a rule to only have one intervention and then if you think you have the time to read each one's arguments and the sources give us a third opinion suggesting us what to do. I think I'll work on this proposal maybe making some templates to order things and start with it next week, I'll try to make an slow-pace editing, only once a day in the nights wait for responses during the next day, I think it could be more productive. but do you think you have the time and patience to deal with us? --  Erebedhel  -  Talk  07:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Puyehueenlosandes.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Puyehueenlosandes.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Chincha Islands War map
I'm not really much of a "map expert" (I think "Keysanger" was a much better map-creator, but dealing with him is like playing with a double-edged sword), but I could try to give it an "improvement." Personally, I agree with you that the map is good enough as it is for the Chincha Islands War article. It is certainly really difficult to create a "perfect" map when at that time South American countries had a series of overlapping claims. It is truly often difficult to remember or add all of the related claims.

For instance, Chile and Bolivia did not establish a formal border until 1866 (the year the Chincha Islands War ended). Also, Peru had a border dispute with Bolivia over the "Acre" territory in what the map you created has as northern Bolivia (the region Brazil later took); to this day Peruvians (and probably Peru's govt.) consider that the Bolivian "sell" of the Acre territory was illegal. Ecuador also had large border claims in Peru, Colombia, and even Brazil; and the map you provide doesn't correctly set that either.

Basically, the whole point is that I agree with you on the difficulty of picturing all of these rather silly "corrections."

Nonetheless, I must say that, up to a certain point, it is important to show correct maps. Several wars have started as a result of incorrect maps; but Wikipedia is a "free" encyclopedia that anyone can edit and/or improve. If your map is "wrong," then other users can improve it as they see fit. To complain about the map and not do anything about it is really quite unproductive.

Well, I'll still try to do an "improvement" to the map, but it probably won't be "perfect" either. I'm sure Clodaoc has good intentions, but probably won't really do much of anything to actually do an improvement on the map. Don't argue too much about the matter with him.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 23:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Flores propaganda frei.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Flores propaganda frei.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Flores_propaganda_frei.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Flores_propaganda_frei.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Chilean people
Dentren write: the majority of Chileans were mestizos (Indian and Spanish ancestry), genetic studies would not give a white majority 60% to 64%, what you write is inconsistent.

PD:  I am not User:Opinoso, God forbid that I should be haa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.36.24.47 (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Chilean people
The lead looks much more balanced now, Dentren. Good work!

Now, it would help avoid allegations of original research if we were able to come up with some sources.

I will look for some, but I might need your help with that. Likeminas (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your involvement. Now we have to source it and defend it. Dentren |  Ta lk  01:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I agree is a good job, but I think in the heading should be genetic studies, first of all and we must find the sources of what he wrote dentren. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.36.24.47 (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Chilean People 2
--186.36.24.47 (talk) 05:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Dentren, the first heading to the Chilean people is more appropriate to the article, plus more neutral and not take part either by genetic studies that give a majority white or mixed ancestry for the majority of Chileans  what is stated in ethnic and social structure(like all Latin America)  which should not be named x genotype.

Chincha Islands Map
I updated the map in the file that you showed me, but for some reason it got corrupted. So, I created a new upload for the image. You can view it here:. I'm sorry it took me so long to make it, but I think the result should be pleasing to all. I give you credit in the file summary as the original author of the image. Best regards, and I hope this solves the problem in the Chincha Islands War page.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 19:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Im impressed. Dentren  |  Ta lk  19:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If any more problems come up, feel free to contact me. I'll keep a watch on the Chincha Islands War page to see if anything important goes on there. I think I will soon begin a mini-improvement drive on the article (to source the material). It's a relatively short war, so it should be easy to make a good article out of it.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 19:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Chilean people
I agree, ethnicity does not equal nationality, but I'm sure you're aware that there's no Chilean ethnicity.

So why are we not including what the country of Chile considers to be a Chilean?

If you decide to respond please use the talk page of the corresponding article Likeminas (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the fast changes. You might be right that there is no Chilean etnicity because I have no seen any work defining it.. just only those that refer to all the inhabitants of Chile from unmixed Aymaras to Basque Chileans. However I dont think is the best way to start the article with an unsourced definition. We need to look more at this. If we campare to the articles about Germans we see that they are divided between Germans and Ethnic Germans, and the case of Chileans there would be no Ethnic Chileans.. no?  Dentren  |  Ta lk  18:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * in the Collins Dictionary Chilean is defined as "a native or inhabitant of Chile". We used that?


 * There does exist a Chilean ethnicity, but only when looking at things from the outside of Chile. Example: Chileans living abroad all share a common culture (speaking, cuisine, facial looks), and their descendants will share that culture; however, since the descendants "mix" with the other cultures, there is no other possibility for them than to "call upon" their Chilean ethnicity. Hence, they are ethnic Chileans; with subdivisions such as Chilean American (There probably are others, such as Chilean German, Chilean Spanish (or Chilean Spaniard, in order not to confuse with the language); but for some reason they are not mentioned here in Wiki). Chilean Americans are ethnic Chileans.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 20:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right there is a cultural ethnicity.. but not a single racial. We now however that inside Chile there is minority groups such as Mapuches and German-Chileans and both are considered equally Chilean as an average Santiago person. It is mainly ignorant people from outside that questions the "Chilenity" of this groups. Chilean people as identity is associated with the Chilean state, before independence there were Spaniards, Spaniards decedants and indians. Chilean state is in turn associated with its territory. So tis seems logical to argua that Chileans are defined geographically, and so is the way it is done for adquiring Chilean nationality.


 * Apart from discussing the definiton, which is realy important I think this articla needs to be watched, there is some anonym IP´s errasing and moving around material they do not feel confortable with, specially this regarding the levels of Amerindian ancestry. We need to keep the article clean so its does not becomes an ethnoracial mess like Southern Cone and Southern Cone. Dentren |  Ta lk  20:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Conquered Population In Sicilian Emirate
What is the problem here? The section is sited to Michele Amari's preeminent treatise on the history of Islam in Sicily... Please discuss your issues on the article's discussion page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommylotto (talk • contribs) 23:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you cite to another reliable verifiable authority that suggests the view of this section is flawed? Or are you just speculating by how it feels? Are you objecting to POV or undue weight? What exactly is your objection? What is your suggestion for improvement? I do not think it is undue weight. The whole article is about the Islamic conquest of Sicily. A single section about the treatment of the conquered population during this century of domination is in order. Not covering it would rather be a sugar coating of the fact that the indigenous population was, in fact, conquered and placed in a subservient position. (You will note that the article also covers the discrimination against the Muslims after the island was conquered by the Normans in the Aftermath section.) Also, the section does not only list restriction on the conquered population, it notes that they were allowed freedom of religion subject to the restrictions listed. The material cites to verifiable reliable sources, does not push a point of view, and is proper.Tommylotto (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image on Germans
I see that you've reverted the edit by user:195.243.51.34 on the infobox picture at Germans. I was the immediate preceding editor who reverted the same picture, only to have 195.243.51.34 revert it right back. It appears he has strong views on the matter. I would encourage you to comment on this at Talk:Germans so that this doesn't become a boring edit war. Cheers. Mark5677 (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

O'higgins
Are you going to revert all of these edits?. -- MisterWiki  talk   contribs  21:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Which edits are you speaking about? Dentren  |  Ta lk  21:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)