User talk:Marceloapm

Layout of Peruvian presidents
Hello, Marceloapm. Generally speaking, I don't have some big complaints about the layout which you implemented at President of Peru, but some things should be corrected:


 * 1) You removed the party colours which existed in the previous format, and I strongly believe they should be put back.
 * 2) Years of birth and death should be put back as well (I see that you put back some of them already, but not all and that should be done).
 * 3) The size of pictures is way too big, and they should be scaled back at about 80px-100px.

I am sure some other things can be corrected too, but they're too small to be mentioned here, and we can deal with them over time. Anyway, I'm looking forward to hear your thoughts about this. --Sundostund (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

-: Hello, friend. Thank you for your feedback. -# Yes, I have noticed that I removed the party colors. However, I do believe that they are important. I was going to originally keep them but I failed to do so because when I changed the layout, I had to place them again but I didn't know how. I tried to search online to figure out how to do this but no luck. If you would please explain to me how to do this, that would be great and I will fix it right away. -# Yes, the birth and death years should be put back. In fact, I was already doing this yesterday. Hopefully, I will finish this by the end of today. -# Ok, I will seriously consider changing the picture size to the recommended scale or as close as possible to that change because not all pictures have same dimensions and could be distorted. -I am very new to this and I'm still learning. If you have any other suggestions, please let me know. Thanks and take care. --Marceloapm (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm very glad to see your response, and its very satisfying to hear your thought about the issues which I raised. First of all, let me say that I have no problem to help you with your work on the list, when I find enough time to dwell into that (I made some slight corrections yesterday, as you can see).


 * When it comes to the party colors, just look how they were placed in the previous layout (which you changed), and it will be easy to copy-paste the same solution in the new layout.


 * Regarding the picture size, they're just too big at the moment, they make the article longer than it is and its generally hard to navigate it. Please, change their size as much as possible to my recommended scale, and you will see by yourself how much better it would look. Of course, I don't want any picture to look distorted and we should avoid that, without a doubt.


 * As for some other suggestions and ideas, I must think a bit more about that and I will inform you sometime later. In the end, I must say that I'm really looking forward to our cooperation in the (near) future. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, Marceloapm. As you can see, about a week ago I implemented the changes which we discussed above, and I really think that the article looks better now. But, some other things must be corrected as well. These are my concerns:


 * 1) I really see no point in using full dates for section names, for example "Protectorate of Peru (August 3, 1821 – September 20, 1822)". It should be just "Protectorate of Peru (1821–1822)", as is the norm in basically all articles on English Wikipedia.


 * 1) I think that the "Form of entry" column should be removed - it just overstretches the article, creates a "burden" in the list and is not really necessary. If some really important data exist in it, we can find some new way to keep it in the article.

I strongly considered to implement those changes myself, but I wanted to hear your thoughts about that first and see whether you have some better ideas. --Sundostund (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

-Hello, Sundostund. It is great to hear from you again. About last time, I did try to make the changes I said I would make. In fact, I had already finished but then my internet connection got interrupted, then when it came back on I tried to save the changes and it gave me an error. To my surprise, all the hard work that I had done was erased and could not get it back. Later, when I finally had time, I tried to do it again but I found out that you had done it yourself. I seriously apologize for the inconvenience. Now on the changes you made to my new edit; they look fine to me and perhaps you are right, adding the dates was a little too much. Besides, the page looks much better now. Thank you. --Marceloapm (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, Marceloapm. Its very nice to see your response. I am sorry to hear about your problems with internet connection, but unfortunately things like that do happen (I've had experience with such issues as well). There is nothing worse than to see your hard work erased due to some technical problems... Next, I'm very glad to see that you agree with me about the dates – it was really too much to have full dates as part of the list. Also, please tell me what do you think about the second issue which I raised in my last message – the idea about removing the "Form of entry" column. I think the article would have much less "burden" if we remove it. In the end, I agree that the article does look much better now, and let me say that I plan to make some further adjustments (mostly minor ones). --Sundostund (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Italic peoples
Hello,

Thank you for your notification – I clicked too quickly and didn't check the entire edit. My only concern is the spelling of millenium from millennium. If I'm wrong, just disregard. Otherwise, everything else is fine. Have a good day! Rosalina2427  (talk to me)  23:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

-Hello, Rosalina2427. Sorry if my message sounded harsh. There have been people deleting my edits just for messing with me. But you're right, I should have a look and correct the mistakes. May you also have a good day. Marceloapm  (talk to me)  23:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

At Vicipaedia
Hi, Marceloapm. Maybe it's better to write to you on your English talk page? I hope you'll reply.

You were blocked at Vicipaedia (a) because you moved a page from a name that was properly sourced, to a name that you chose, without adding a source; (b) because you then engaged in an edit war about it with another user. Both of these are things to avoid at Vicipaedia. Pages should not be moved from a sourced name without citing a source for the new name: like all Wikipedias, Vicipaedia is based on reliable sources. And Vicipaedians don't edit-war: we discuss on talk pages. These things were more serious because Civitates Foederatae Americae is a major page, to which hundreds and eventually thousands of other pages are linked. It shouldn't be moving back and forth. If a move is proposed, and discussed with reference to sources, and agreed by consensus, then it can be carried out with attention to redirects, categories, etc.

Having been blocked with the explanation that I wrote on your talk page, you then deleted my explanation without making any reply.

On Vicipaedia, sudden moves of major pages, and edit wars, and deleting of administrators' messages, are all usually symptoms of vandalism. But I've looked at your talk page here, and you're not a vandal at all. If you want to work with us at Vicipaedia, you would be a welcome contributor. If you like to create and format lists of political figures, as with President of Peru, you could do that on Vicipaedia too! Incidentally, discussions on talk pages can take place in any language that contributors share. English and Spanish are both in use on talk pages, as well as Latin.

Please respond here or on your Vicipaedia talk page. If you reply positively, I can unblock you at once. (And then you really could delete that message.) Andrew Dalby 12:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

-Hello, Andrew Dalby. Sorry for the inconvenience. I've had some people delete my edits just to mess with me or sometimes by mistake in the past, I can show you proof if you'd like, so I really didn't know what to think this time. I'm still learning Latin by the way, and I actually just started a month ago, balancing my time between university and my hobbies. So, as you can figure, there might be words that sound correct to me, but just because they do it doesn't make them so. I was looking for the word "Civitates" after some time, and what I saw was that it can be used for many things. "Status", as in the plural nominative word, is more associated with a condition, rank, etc. What I concluded was that it can be used as the word state but only in New Latin, like words that didn't exist centuries ago. After all of this, "Civitates" seems the most appropriate word for "States". -About your message, in the Latin part of Wikipedia, I couldn't read it that much, only a few words. I can only make out short sentences, not long ones at the moment, and the translators didn't help much, and I had the feeling that it was negative against me and I didn't want to reply in bad Latin so I decided to delete it, sorry if you were offended by that. Good news is that I'm learning fast, but a beautiful language such as Latin is not learned overnight. -I really like contributing on Wikipedia because it is much more than just a website, it's a useful tool and I believe knowledge should be shared; correct knowledge that is. -I will also listen to your advice on making my Vicipaedia user page that you left me on the other page but using accurate and correct Latin. May I ask you for some help sometime? You really seem like you know the language. -Thank you for your time. I hope we can be friends. User:Marceloapm 12:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, Marceloapm. Thanks for responding. I understand now why things happened the way they did, and I have unblocked you at Vicipaedia. I'll add our usual welcome message to your talk page over there, and I confirm that, since it's your talk page, you can delete any obsolete discussions from it if you want. (Note: if on your first attempt to edit you appear still to be blocked, it'll be a cache problem which you could solve by reloading the page.)
 * I wrote in Latin on your talk page because I did not yet know what other language you might find easier.
 * Your proposed Latin name for the USA was not wrong -- it was correct Latin -- and you might find sources for it on Google if you look -- and if you do find sources you could propose a move on the talk page. It's surprising how much Latin can be found on the Web, not just classical but scientific and recent Latin: this could be useful for reading practice as well as in looking for sources. Anyway, there are so many other things to do on Vicipaedia that you might think it's better to do a few other things first, and try renaming the very busiest pages later. It's up to you. I will be glad to help if I can. So will others, I am sure. Andrew Dalby 14:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

-Hello again, Andrew. Yes, that sounds much better, if I decide to change the name for something then I should write down my thoughts on a talk page first and see what others think about it. Thank you for listening. I visited the "Civitates Foederatae Americae" page again and some data is outdated, such as the GDP, GDP per capita, and population, which I think is very important, and would like to fix. If I decide to do so I will offer a very reliable source. Thank you and have a great day. Marceloapm (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be a good thing to do. When changing that kind of information on Vicipaedia, mainly just aim to get it right. But if you are altering something that is already sourced, then you need to cite the new source you used. We are especially careful to source our page titles because, like it or not, Vicipaedia pagenames are now a major source (via Google) when anyone looks for the Latin name of something. Andrew Dalby 19:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)