User talk:Keysanger/Archive 1

To add a new section, write here

---

Beagle Conflict
I have no problem with that final edit! A much better way to deal with the issue. Un abrazo. ;-) Justin talk 20:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your signature
Hello Keysanger. I noticed here that your signature does not contain any internal links. Per the guidelines, a signature must include at least one internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page. It appears that you changed your signature in your preferences on 8 August. If you simply uncheck the checkbox marked "Treat the above as wiki markup", the required links will be automatically added. An introduction to customizing your signature can be found here. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning
Just to warn you, you have now made 3 reverts in the last 24 hours on the article Operation Soberanía. As per WP:3RR, you may be blocked if you revert more than three times within the space of 24 hours on a given article. I suggest that you refrain from edit warring further. Pfainuk talk 20:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Pfainuk,
 * I never reverted three times the same text passage. Please take a carefully look to the changes:
 * Revision as of 22:25, 3 September 2010 diff Jor70 reinsert an unreferenced table
 * Revision as of 22:26, 3 September 2010 diff Keysanger's irrelevant edit
 * Revision as of 22:36, 3 September 2010 diff (2x) Jor70 adds 2 invalid references and deletes 2 citation needed-Tags
 * Revision as of 23:22, 3 September 2010 diff (5x) Keysanger adds 2 dubious-Tags and an 1 unreferenced-Tag (besides other edits)
 * Revision as of 23:52, 3 September 2010 diff Jor70 deletes 2 dubious-Tags without improvement of dubious citations
 * Revision as of 13:55, 4 September 2010 diff Keysanger inserts the 2 dubious Tags again
 * Revision as of 16:39, 4 September 2010 diff (3x) Fnlayson changes "unreferenced" by a "refimprove"-Tag (besides other edits)
 * Revision as of 19:18, 4 September 2010 diff Keysanger reverts change refimprove to unreferenced
 * Revision as of 19:47, 4 September 2010 diff Fnlayson reverts unrefenced to refimprove
 * Revision as of 19:52, 4 September 2010 diff Keysanger reverts refimprove to unreferenced


 * summa summarum:
 * I add 2 dubious-Tags and reinserted it again later (1 revert)
 * I add an unreferenced-Tag and change two times a refimprove-Tag by an unreferenced-Tag (1 add + 2 reverts)
 * After the 9. change, Fnlayson perceives that actually the given "references" weren't valid references diff and gives up to change the unreferenced-Tag.


 * Ergo, no 3rr-case here. Besides, I have doubts about the dubious- and unreferenced-tag as "change of the content of an article" for the purpose of the 3RR. IMHO, a dubious or unreferenced-tag doesn't change the conten of an article. Best regards --Keysanger 15:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 3RR does not have to be reverts of the same material: per WP:3RR [t]he four or more reverts that constitute a violation of the rule may involve the same or different material each time. Your edits of 13:55, 19:18 and 19:52 were all reverts within the meaning of WP:3RR, and a fourth revert could have seen you blocked for edit warring.  It would have been a thoroughly WP:LAME thing to get blocked over, and so I am glad that the edit war has now stopped, and that neither you nor anyone else broke 3RR.

Events leading to the Falklands War
Can you wait 5 mins while I copy edit your contribution? Justin talk 19:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK done. Justin talk 19:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Accusations
I was not impolite, the image of the Harrier you added is from the IWM collection, the clue is the large electronic watermark at the bottom. It needs a FUR and as a free image is available it clearly fails our image policy. May I suggest you stop assuming it is personal, it certainly isn't from my perspective. Justin talk 18:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

An apology
May I offer my apologies for my revert earlier today. I clearly made a mistake there as you had included the material I requested. May I nontheless respectively suggest you look at the names of the Argentine units as I don't think they're quite correct. Regrards, Justin talk 19:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

tu forma de actuar en la wikipedia
Sinceramente no entiendo tu forma de editar los articulos y estoy empezando a pensar que tenes algo contra Argentina. Justamente en la wiki inglesa donde la proporcion de editores Britanicos/Argentinos debe ser de 30 a 1 vos lo unico que haces es buscar articulos sobre Argentina y agregar comentarios totalmente ingenuos (que servicio armado no recibio criticas en toda guerra ??? )  modificando articulos sin ni siquiera tener la cortesia de discutirlos primero con los usuarios (de todas las nacionalidades) que vienen manteniendo esos articulos desde años. Y como ya te dije, tu conomiento de este conflicto deja bastante que desear y lo unico que estas haciendo es generar peleas sin aportar nada positivo --Jor70 (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Tall ships
Hello. Tall ships are sailing vessels, not battleships or cruisers. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and thank you for creating list of ships of the Chilean Navy! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Chilean destroyer Alden
Hello Keysanger. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Chilean destroyer Alden, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a recently created redirect - consider WP:RfD. Thank you. nancy 16:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Pulo Aura
Hi there, thanks for adding this detail about the ship Cumberland, it is very interesting as was the source you linked to - could you please format the source in the same fashion as the others on the page rather than leave it as a raw URL? Many thanks, --Jackyd101 (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thankyou very much - very interesting website!--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to join WikiProject Chile
Greetings, and thank you for your contributions to articles related to the Republic of Chile! I would like to extend to you an invitation to join our project. Started in 2007, it has since become a little stagnant, so a few of us are banding together to reinvigorate efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the slender, diverse nation and invite anyone who is interested to participate. There is a lot of room for improvement, so your efforts are appreciated. Thanks! - Ruodyssey (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can help with any translations if you would like. - Ruodyssey (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Moyle
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Jonathan Moyle, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/60769.stm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Keysanger, I responded to your message on my talk and the article's as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I replied again. I double checked the duplication detector and there still appears to be problems.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Francisco José Cox


Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mark  Dask  08:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there. While you were correct in assuming that the page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, in future, please do not remove or revert such taggings from articles that you created yourself. Doing so might be considered vandalism. Also, your attempts lead to an edit conflict with my admin related edits to the article. It should now be restored to normal but note that it might still be deleted using Articles for deletion. Regards  So Why  08:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Spanish-English
Hey Keysanger, thanks for asking for help! I've read the section, and it appears we have to take some liberty with the translation (but not the facts). Therefore, I propose the following:

Original
 * ''Después de la guerra apareció en el debate argentino el neologismo Desmalvinización para un supuesto intento de parte de la oligarquía argentina y el imperialismo británico de borrar de la memoria la guerra de las malvinas o por lo menos de desmantelar la debida correlación entre la guerra y la historia argentina. Según los detractores de la desmalvinización, esta política victimizaba a los soldados argentinos, demonizaba a los oficiales y toda la guerra era presentada como el producto de una clique de oficiales corruptos.

Proposed
 * After the war, some quarters of Argentine society believe Argentina and Great Britain is trying to minimize or trivialize the war, as well as its impact on Argentine history. A new term, Desmalvinización (roughly "De-Falklandization"), was even coined to explain this phenomenon. Detractors of De-Falklandization believe that as the war is more and more portrayed as the product of the military dictatorship, it would result in victimizing the soldiers and officers.

I do suggest we flesh things out further though. Does the translation work? Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 18:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we can improve the translation:
 * Not Argentina and Great Britain is trying ... but the A. oligarchy and the B. imperialism as I read in Es decir, conciente o inconscientemente, se invisibiliza el papel jugado por los ejércitos imperialistas en las privaciones y en la muerte de nuestros soldados. He ahí un objetivo claro de la “desmalvinización”. (that is for B. Imperialism.) For the Argentine oligarchy the reference says No es casual que Menem, abanderado de las relaciones carnales con el Imperio, haya silenciado (“borocotizado” diríamos hoy) al Veterano otorgándole beneficios sociales y económicos. Menem is the personification of oligarchy in Argentina.
 * the reference text doesn't speak directly about the A. history but about relation between the war and the A. history: La campaña “desmalvinizadora” deshistorizó la guerra hasta degradarla al nivel de un capricho de un puñado de oficiales, a quienes se presentó movidos por una enfermiza sed de poder y de gloria. Deliberadamente se desligó el conflicto de una reivindicación nacional histórica de 150 años contra una de las potencias coloniales más crueles y agresivas de los últimos 3 siglos. That is La "campaña desmalvinizadora” try to hide the right of Argentina over the Falklands. The war was because of "un capricho de un puñado de oficiales" not because the A. right over the islands, say the "desmalvinizers".
 * By the De-Falklandization soldiers are victimized but officers are demonized. Officers are the bad guys of the story. The reference says Fuimos chicos ignorantes ((that is, victims)) nos dicen ((the Demalvinizers)), sometidos a todo tipo de escarnios no por los que nos bombardeaban ((the Brits)), sino por los que estaban a nuestro lado ((that is the A. officers)) combatiendo.


 * New attempt:


 * After the war, some quarters of Argentine society believe Argentine oligarchy and British imperialism is trying to trivialize the war, as well as to hide its relation with the historic Argentine rights over the islalnds. A new term, Desmalvinización (roughly "De-Falklandization"), was even coined to explain this phenomenon. Detractors of De-Falklandization believe that the war is more and more portrayed as the product of the corrupt military dictatorship and that the soldiers are shown as victims of perverse officer.


 * The reference is website of some kind of a Argentine left nationalist movement. Its Spanish is very confuse as also their arguments. I didn't find a better reference. What about desmalvinize? --Keysanger (what?) 20:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

We continue the talk in Talk:Cultural impact of the Falklands War. Best regards, --Keysanger (what?) 12:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Content removal at Mediation Cabal
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-06-24/Falkland_Islands_Sovereignty_Dispute, you may be blocked from editing.

Regards. --Langus (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Noticeboard
This is to notify you of the case taking place at. Happy editings.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 16:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Your request for arbitration
Your request for arbitration has been declined. The Arbitration Committee did not feel that this was ready for an arbitration case and that other avenues of dispute resolution could be explored. As one arbitrator suggested, "Given that you've already tried informal mediation, you could try either a Request for Comment on content or formal mediation. For the user conduct dispute, if there are relatively minor concerns you could try Wikiquette alerts, and if there are more serious conduct problems, I would suggest a Request for Comment on user conduct". For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

defensive alliance
Hi Keysanger, at NPOV/N you wrote, "I agree that, regarding the use of 'defensive' in the paragraph, MarshalN20's proposal is a good proposal." The exact wording Marshal proposed was "...Bolivia sought the activation of its Treaty of Mutual Defense with Peru". I also agree that it is a good proposal and moreover I can't see any possible policy based argument for excluding the real name of treaty from the article lead. . Alex Harvey (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The core of the agreement is that Wikipedia must differentiate between the official name of the treaty and a adjectival use of the word "defense" or "defensive". Moreover, I can't accept that the changes aren't replicated to the other places in the article where the treaty is mentioned.


 * I added that already to the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard‎. We should discuss there so that other people can follow the discusion easily. Best regards,--Keysanger (what?) 11:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not see the problem. Marshal's new wording deliberately avoided the use of the adjective 'defensive' after Shelton. Okay as you apologised for poor English earlier, I'm not 100% sure if you're even aware that when words are capitalised in English as in 'Treaty of Mutual Defense', the reader knows that a proper noun is referred to, in this case the official name of the treaty. It does not imply that the treaty was defensive in reality. Yet in the diffs above you were trying to change the wording to 'Treaty of Alliance', which would tell the reader that the treaty was officially called the 'Treaty of Alliance', which is obviously wrong. Is it possible that this is just a misunderstanding about the language? (By the way as far as responding at NPOV/N I don't think it's intended as a place for general discussion and moreover I don't think many people read it anyway. As I said at my own talk page, if you want outside views, RFC is probably a better way to get them.) Alex Harvey (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do also disagree with adding "so-called" to the Traty of Mutual Defense. That's the name of the treaty. The traditional Chilean is not normative. Chiton magnificus (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I will answer your questions in the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard‎. --Keysanger (what?) 13:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The term "So-called" also goes against the Wikipedia Manual of Style since it's weasel word.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 14:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Contraloría General de la República de Chile
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Contraloría General de la República de Chile, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://countrystudies.us/chile/94.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Contraloría General de la República de Chile


A tag has been placed on Contraloría General de la República de Chile, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 18:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Contraloría General de la República de Chile


A tag has been placed on Contraloría General de la República de Chile requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 18:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. The source that you used here was public domain because it was authored by a federal employee. That makes it okay to copy it onto Wikipedia, but it is considered plagiarism to do so without noting specifically that you have copied text and identifying the source that you've copied it from. I've taken care of it with this article, but in the future if you copy content from sources you can verify to be public domain (we can't guess on this), please make sure to follow Plagiarism. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Chilean brigantine Araucano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blanco Encalada (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Beaglenav
Hi there. I've made some changes to Template:Beaglenav. Tell me what you think in the discussion page. Cheers. Pristino (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright on Charles Whiting Wooster
Hi Keysanger, I deleted the article on Charles Whiting Wooster, because you indicated on an earlier version you said "The initial version of this article is copied from Charles Lyon Chandler's Inter-American acquaintances, The University Press of Sewanee Tennessee, Sewanee, Tennesse. ISBN 9781110483839", which is available under CC-BY-NC-ND, but that that licence is not compatible with ours (notably, the NC-ND part). Since you recreated the article, is there something I missed, in that it is compatible with our licence, or maybe there is dual licencing that I hadn't seen? Regards, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
  "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,   I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."  Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)  Wee Curry Monster talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

Territorial dispute templates
If you believe that these templates should only apply to articles on unresolved disputes, you might want to change their headings to say so, and remove templates from articles on resolved disputes, such as Beagle conflict. My view is that it is more helpful to include resolved disputes, but to identify them as such. Obviously, I would only include disputes where there is (or should be) a WP article. --Mhockey (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Mhockey,
 * the use of gerund "involving" in the heading means that the dispute is going on. The talk page of the template included a comment of another editor regarding this issue: resolved disputes shouldn't be included. And it is a good idea. To include all disputes would make the template uninteresting and too long. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 00:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To be pedantic, I think you'll find that "involving" is a present participle, not a gerund (a verbal noun). It is a verbal adjective which qualifies "disputes", meaning that the "involving" is contemporary with the "dispute".  Thus the sentence The dispute involving Argentina was settled by the Pope. is a valid sentence which means the same as The dispute which involved Argentina was settled by the Pope.  And I'm not sure what you mean by "too long".  As far as I can see from Category:Territorial disputes of Argentina there are WP articles on only 3 resolved territorial disputes involving Argentina.--Mhockey (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand dispute involving Argentina is decidedly not the same as dispute which involved Argentina. We can ask a third opinion. Beagle, Puna de Atacama, Falklands, Laguna del Desierto, Antartica, Misiones, Tarija, Sanwich Islands, etc. I know more that three A. disputes, but we should concentrate to the unresolved. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not quite what I said. I am saying that there is no tense attached to "involving", so dispute involving means dispute which involves, involved or will involve, unless the context requires a single tense.  So in context "dispute involving A" can certainly mean "dispute which involved A".--Mhockey (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keysanger has a point, if you're templating for disputes that involved Argentina what is your criteria for inclusion? What about the War of the Triple Alliance for example, Isle de Martin Garcia, the War of the Pacific.  There are more than 3 articles, its just the template doesn't include them.  At the moment to an independent observer it appears to be distinctly wooly as to which disputes are included.  Wee Curry Monster talk 21:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If we can have a Category:Territorial disputes of Argentina (which incidentally does not include the disputes you mention), I do not see the difficulty in having a template. My preference is to include all disputes for which we have WP articles.  I'm not too fussed which way we go, but I think we do need some clarity and consistency.  If you want to limit the template to settled disputes, I think we need to amend the title of the template, and remove the template from articles on settled disputes. --Mhockey (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Martín García canal dispute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River Plate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

3RR Notification
Keysanger, this message is to notify you of the 3RR discussion at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 02:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Return to sender
. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Message
16:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

First Chilean Navy Squadron
Hi Keysanger, I took a glance over First Chilean Navy Squadron per your request. I could tell from reading it that you were speaking English as a second language, but I still found it readable and understandable. The vocabulary did seem appropriate. From what I saw the article appeared to be within policy, but both Chile and navies are areas that I don't know much about. The only note that I'd make is that phrases like "emancipate Peru" struck me as slightly POV... it's not serious enough to tag the article, I think, but I'd be curious to know, for example, the Spanish point-of-view in this conflict, and to have it more carefully noted that there were two sides, each making their own arguments. Does that make sense?

Referencing seemed largely good, but I'd encourage you to do even more. I think the WP:MOS suggests a minimum of one reference per paragraph, so that it's clear to the reader what the source for every fact is.

The bottom line, though, is that I thought this was a well-referenced article that'll be a very useful addition to the English wiki. I hope this helps! Thanks for your hard work. -- Khazar (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * At least it is legible. About the Spanish point-of-view, it is difficult to find sources in internet. I think it is because we like to talk about our victories but every one get reticent about his defeats: "the victory has many fathers, but the defeat is orphan". In the next days I will borrow a book (the only one about the issue) from the university library. The other issue is more complicated: how important were the naval squadron?. Probably this question has not been analysed in depth by historians. Thanks, Khazar, for your help and words. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. All the best for your future articles, Khazar (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Cook Island, Tierra del Fuego, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cook Bay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Martin Gusinde Anthropological Museum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alerce (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Falklands
I used the topic as an example, not as a topic of discussion. I also have not brought up "the theme of mental states", and actually refrained myself from it (which is what I wrote). I'd like for an admin to block you for disrupting a discussion to make a WP:POINT (going against both WP:TALK guidelines and WP:NOTFORUM); and, yet, I have tried to help you out by removing this disruptive off-topic discussion. Still, you want to keep it going? And you want to distort this whole thing and pass it off as my doing? If you really want to get blocked that badly, then that's perfectly fine by me...but don't carry me with down with your Esmeralda.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 16:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion every editor has the right to be informed about your opinion about the issue. You have this right and I also have this right. You included the WoP issue, I only followed you. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 19:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Talk:Falkland Islands. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Martin Gusinde Anthropological Museum
Nice work on Martin Gusinde Anthropological Museum and thanks for the invitation to edit. About the article I wonder 2 things: is it realy built of alerce (Fitzroya) wood? Thats surprising since it is nowadays protected by law, but perhaps not in the 1970s. And 2nd, do you have any refereces to work uppon? Albeit content is good and credible-for me- it might not be considered so by others. Chiton magnificus (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the reference, . I found the data in the permanent Script of the Museum under "Yaghans, explorers and settlers: 10.000 years of Southern Tierra del Fuego Archipelago History". A really interesting thing. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Check Ip contribs
Hey, can you check the contribs of Special:Contributions/24.232.70.224. My internet now is too slow to allowme check and correct any broken links. Chiton magnificus (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)