User talk:MarshalN20/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! // laughing man 01:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * Thank you very much laughing man. Yes, I don't remember ever getting a formal welcome ( :D ). Well, yes, I'm hoping to stay and help Wikipedia with the articles. I know many people think Wikipedia isn't really much of a reliable network, but what many don't know is that it's actually one of the better-places out there to find some sort of information. I mean, just because it doesn't have some source to validate a statement, it doesn't mean it's false. It just means there's a chance it's not true ). Thank you once more for the welcome. MarshalN20 11:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Peru national football team
Hello. Congratulations on your efforts to improve the article on the Peruvian national football team. For further improvement and suggestions you might want to submit it for peer review at WikiProject Peru/Peer review. I'm sure members of the project will be glad to help. Greetings, --Victor12 17:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I can do it for you if you want. Just write a short introduction for the article and post it in my talk page. Greetings, --Victor12 18:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Done! You might want to add WikiProject Peru/Peer review/Peru national football team to your watchlist so that you'll know when comments arrive. --Victor12 19:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep!--64.123.132.198 (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Bolivar
Hi MarshalN20 - I apologize for cavalierly reverting the edit you just made to Bolivar, and if you restore it I won't take it out again. But I really think it needs to be re-written in encyclopedia style, something like, "Some scholars, on the other hand, have questioned..." Llajwa 00:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems
I did what the peer review suggested. Also, I mostly work on articles that don't attract a lot of attention, so not using the talk page is something I'm used to because there's a good chance that no one will respond in months. I apologize for the big edit. I also did not know that the Peru national football team was so active. I hope you can understand and that I will use the talk page for major edits in the future. -- MicroX 21:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Quechua
Hi, Marshal. I'm glad to see you added some references, but there are a number of problems.

First, the Incas did not impose Quechua universally. This is easily seen from the fact that Aymara is widespread in former Inca territory. Bruce Mannheim's The Language of the Inka since the European Invasion explains the linguistic diversity of the Inca empire (which for most regions only lasted about a hundred years).

"Historians" don't talk about "Original Quechua"; that's Paul Heggarty term, and he is a linguist (a very good one, and a Wikipedia contributor). Most linguists would say Proto-Quechua. The thing is, Proto-Quechua was not spoken in Inca times; the divergence between Central and Peripheral Quechua predates them by centuries.

Most importantly, the Incas spoke an early form of Southern Quechua. They did not spread this to central Peru because central Peru already spoke Quechua. Quechua I is not any sort of "slang" or the result of previous languages. It is the Quechua heartland. For more see Lyle Campbell's American Indian Languages or Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino's Lingüística Quechua. Also see Paul's excellent page on myths about Quechua: http://www.quechua.org.uk/Eng/Main/i_MYTHS.HTM

Thus, the diversity of Quechua does not result from the spread of the Incas. The Incas did spread their form of Quechua. The Spanish spread it further. If you look at the map on the Quechua page, the II-B and II-C areas (outside southern Peru) are where they expanded the empire and spread their own dialect.

Finally, there isn't any evidence that the "ruling elite" remained closer to Cusco dialect. The areas that remained closer to Cusco dialect are simply those that were most recently conquered. Zompist (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Bicycle Kick
Sections of the content that you included infringes policy. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For example you included Although the Peruvian claim lacks specific dates and names for its evidence, it gives a substantial amount of facts. The legacy of the Chalaca lives on to this day as Peru is not the only nation to call the move in such a manner. That constitutes as original research. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not original research when it's included in the same source that you provided under "Campaña". If anything a new section should be added to the article. You included an edited statement of what Manuel Burga had said which was de origen peruano y no chileno, como equivocadamente se le llama. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Barraza does not represent an entire country when Ole the Argentine publication that published the interview with Huigita makes reference to chilena when he uses the term chalaca. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Going to review the tour dates. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * According to http://peru.com/futbol/seleccion/historia/futbolistas/tfernandez.asp

Lolo Fernandez played against Magallanes on "29 de noviembre de 1931" and Alianza's games against Chilean clubs happened after 1935. There is never any mention of him performing a bicycle kick within that source. The other link you provided http://www.clubalianzalima.com/pages/hist1921.asp doesn't feature any content other than an image. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to read No original research. You are simply stringing together different types of information just to prove a point, which has no relevance to the subject matter which is the invention of the bicycle kick. All those club tours especially the one between Alianza Lima and Colo-Colo occurred well after David Arellano showcased the move in Europe, and well after 1920, where Unzaga executed the move in the South American Championship. The fact that Peru may have an older sports institution in no way validates the claim. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Facts are one thing but have no purpose when trying to prove a point which is explained in Wikipedia's original research policy. You are trying to state that because of a few club games between Chilean and Peruvian clubs after 1927 the year that David Arellano had died in Spain, the bicycle kick came about? If not than the content is not in context to the claim. This is an encyclopedia and nationalistic pride is put aside, that doesn't mean that the article cannot follow proper guidelines and be well written. Tennis has no relevance to the subject matter yet you'd like to include that. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, in reply to your question on my talk page, the only thing I would really say is that we're not supposed to give undue weight to one particular argument. At first glance, we've got one section that's way longer than all the others. Do we really need so much detail? Should the other claims therefore have more detail? (in my opinion, no; the section on its origins is already longer than the rest of the article). Thanks, Beve (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Your second suggestion sounds like a good one to me - a separate article that goes into more depth. However, I'm by no means an expert on Wikipedia policies, so it's probably best to propose it at WP:FOOTY and get some consensus. Cheers, Beve (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Kick
My question: Help! Please, I'm serious about this. In the article Bicycle Kick a user has been vandalizing the article and making it POV towards his views. You can read on the discussion page on the article the situation. Also, you can compare the version he is vandalizing and my version in my "MarshalN20" Username page. Please help. He has also been deleting several of my sources. I don't know what to do. I've put a lot of work into this and he keeps vandalizing my things.--MarshalN20 (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can report him to WP:AIV if he keeps it up, or discuss it with him. Also, new posts on a talk page always go to the bottom, so I moved this. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't vandalism. Please discuss this with the other user on the talk page, as Dispute resolution requires. Note you are potentially violating the three revert rule. Hut 8.5 20:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If he replaced the page with profanity, that would be vandalism. So long as the user honestly believes they are making the article better through his efforts then they are not vandalising. The method commonly accepted on Wikipedia for resolving disputes is not simply repeated reversion of material (which both of you were doing, and I've warned the IP as well) but discussion with the other party on the talk page. It may be that you weren't aware of this, that's OK - you are now. If one or more parties won't discuss changes on the talk page, then the user can be blocked for edit warring or the page can be protected (requests should go here and here respectively). Hut 8.5 20:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I see someone has blocked the IP for violating the rules anyway. Hut 8.5 20:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Pisco
Hi MarshalN20,

You recently added a reference for the claim that Pisco is named after the port city in Peru. I'm sure you're aware that it is quite a contentious issue between Peru & Chile. Because of this, I think that a Peruvian Pisco manufacturers website is not a very reliable reference. It would be much better to have a reference from an neutral international researcher or something similar. 'Pisco' is also a common Quechua word, I think strong evidence that the drink was specifically named after the port city.

Also as a Peruvian, you should be extremely careful about editing the Pisco page to avoid bias. It receives a lot of edits by Pervian/Chilean editors who each delete the others content, re-word or re-order things in favor of their country.

--Ozhiker (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

RE
This reliable source states that the first recorded game of football in Peru occurred in 1892. The Lima Cricket and Football Club‎ website is non-nuetral,therefore less reliable that the neutral source. if you wish to use the Lima Cricket and Football Club article to boast about football in Peru predating football elsewhere on the continent plaese find a relaible source that gives an account of a football match played in Peru before 1867. E P  23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) You clearly believe that you own the Peru section of the Bicycle Kick article constantly reverting other peoples edits. The long section you keep reinserting adds nothing to the article, it just fills out the section, there is no equivelent on the origins of football in Italy, the oldest club in Italy the most important seaport in Italy, etc. The the Italian claim is clearer and more consise for the ommission of such needless information.
 * 2) You left this on my talkpage, it is misleading According to the book you cite, the first recorded football match happened in 1867. In that same book they never state that this was the first football match. They simply state that it was the "first recorded." I'm sure you know enough about the English language to know the difference between both things. The book I cited actually stated "soccer arrived in Peru in the 1880s aboard an english ship", "the first recorded football match took place in 1892" and "In 1893 two exclusive soccer clubs were formed, Lima Cricket and Football Club.... and Unión Cricket". This contradicts your wishful interpretation of what the book says.
 * 3) Whenever someone makes changes you dont like, you revert without discussion, make false accusations of vandalism and/or rant on their talkpages instead of trying to engage anyone in discussion you tell them that they are wrong, misquoting or misinterpreting things in the process see point 2. Your manner is confrontational and patronising. Please read up on Wikipedia policies such as WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, WP:SOCK and WP:SELFPUB.

- E P  23:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You clearly didn't read WP:CIVIL did you? E  P  22:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you re-read what I said, Mariano, Nanonic and Selecciones are the respected editors, please ensure that you actually understand what people are saying before you start ranting on. If you have nothing but barely comprehensible drivel and weak insults to offer in defence of your position, I recomend that you keep quiet. Now could you please desist from drivelling on my talkpage. Thank you. E  P  13:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop hurling around unsubstantiated allegations. If you suspect misconduct you should provide diffs as evidence and if you suspect sock-puppetry you should Request checkuser. Making unsubstantiated allegations, being rude, aggressive, sarcastic and misrepresenting other peoples intentions do nothing but damage your argument further. Have you nothing better to do here than post on my talkpage? E  P  19:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility
Please be WP:CIVIL in your discussions. I see you are engaged in an edit war on Bicycle kick and Talk:Bicycle kick. I have seen name calling that is not constructive and does no befit intelligent adults such as yourself and the other two sides on this discussion User:English peasant and User:Selecciones de la Vida. I would suggest all sides tone down the nastiness and concentrate on resolving the dispute. May I suggest, if you cannot reach an agreement to ask at FOOTY where there are many knowledgeable editors that can help resolve the issue. If you want a more formal process, you could also consider Dispute Resolution. I also would advise stepping away from the article for a few days to let things cool down. Notices are also given to the other two parties. -- Alexf42 19:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussions
FYI, I have opened discussions at WP:FOOTBALL and WP:WIKIQUETTE. E P  23:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, MarshalN20
I do not know so much about South American cuisine but it seems to me that what this user is doing on Wikipedia 201.255.138.172, or 201.255.167.247 using both nr. (the one you corrected on . Alfajor) is wrong and not correct. He is reverting categories, Wikiproject info on talk pages, and removing informatiom about other countries, mainly Chile and Mexico, claimimng thet dishes are from Argentina, Articles like. Dulce de leche‎;, Empanada‎; Choripán‎[ ;Dulce de membrillo. Can you support his information?

Warrington (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. What happened whith these articles was weird. Good detective work!

Warrington (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Chile-Peru relations and other articles.
When I first saw your edits to the section war of the pacific, I was struck by the way you wanted to paint the role of Peru in that war. While I understand that this historical event might evoke strong sentiments on some Peruvians editors and even though I’ve tried to assume good faith on your part, and refrain myself from misinterpreting you edits, I can’t help it but notice and realize that throughout all your edits regarding Peru (that happen to involve Chile); you vehemently try to place a favorable Peruvian point on most of your edits.

This has been the case in the Bicycle kick article where most of your references are newspapers mentioning the word “chacala” maybe once or twice. I don’t know if they can be considered a reliable sources or merely Anecdotal evidence or perhaps Original research, but what I do know is that your POV pushing on that article has left a lengthy discussion on the talk page that demonstrates that I’m not the only one who thinks so of your behavior.

Now, you’ve come to push your Peruvian POV on the war of the pacific section of the Chile-Peru relations article. This time, you have gone out of your way to give lengthy (and unnecessary) background information on the conditions that Peru was faced before entering the war, so that in the reader’s perception it doesn’t come out as a defeated nation by its own merits but due to some other unforeseen factors.

Do you think I should include another paragraph relating the domestic issues or any other set of events that preceded Chile’s role in the war on an article’s section that’s meant to be just a rough summary of it?

I tried to make that section as objective as possible, but you had to come and push your POV on it once again. Not only you have tried to paint an almost heroic portrait of Peru’s participation in the war, but also you’ve put a lot of effort to include weasel words that make Chile look like a total villain. Clear examples are your edits including;

- invaded and occupied, without a prior declaration of war

-the expansionist ambitions of Chile. -The Chilean army left a path of destruction, and Lima was stormed and sacked.

Then again, after I added a concise paragraph of the new controversy involving Peru’s top general, you have once again gone out of your way to cite Yellow press articles - from Peru of course- to give a more favorable view of the facts. This time with another “surprising” twist; Chilean politicians are mingling in Peru’s domestic policies.

If you notice, my entry not only included the general’s polemic remarks, but also the exaggerated reaction of some newspapers in Chile, most importantly I tried my best to use objective language and cite my edit using a neutral/reliable source, CNN.

So I ask; Can we collaborate and try to make an article as objective as possible without citing yellow press, which most of the time include language that evoke strong emotions? Can we put our differences aside for the common good of an article?

I know it’s possible. So I ask you to join me and to work for a better, more reliable and objective Wikipedia. Likeminas (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a deep breath and count to 3
Take it easy. You took the issue personally. I didn’t call you names or attached any adjectives to you, and you call me childish right away? Is that a mature approach to take?

You’re unwilling to compromise or at least cooperate with me by your own admission and you threaten me with reporting me to wiki? Good luck with that ok!

Let me know if change your mind and you're willing to reach a reasonable agreement that keeps a NPOV on that article. In the meantime, I will revert all your weasel and POV-loaded edits.Likeminas (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, if you're willing to cooperate with others to reach a reasonable agreement on what can arguably be a controversial and touchy subject I see no reason why anyone would revert your edits.
 * I'm more than willing and able to write a NPOV article with anybody, as I have done several times before with other people, including Peruvians, Argentinians and people from many other nationalities.

Likeminas (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I’m not looking to be your buddy, I barely know you.
 * In fact, I doubt Wikipedia is a good platform to become “buddies” with anyone. All I was asking for is objectivity, neutral language and reliable sources, which is basically the same sort of things Wikipedia expects from its editors.


 * I honestly don’t think is too far from the truth to state that you have tried to give a favorable Peruvian POV on the Chile-Peru relations article, while at the same time, have made an effort to include loaded words against Chile. Also; why do you see the necessity of including lengthy background information on the War of the pacific section, when there’s an article entirely dedicated to discuss it?


 * Now regarding General Donayre, I must tell you that I have, indeed, watched the video on Youtube and nowhere, he mentions anything about the border dispute. Perhaps, you’d be so kind to direct me to the right video.
 * And while, Peru.com can be regarded as “website” of certain degree of fame in Peru, its international reputation as a reliable source stands only within that country’s borders. El Mercurio, on the other hand (although, somewhat conservative) is arguably the most influential and prestigious newspaper in Chile, and the newspaper cited most frequently on international news regarding Chile.
 * The funny thing is that, in the section involving Gen. Donayre’s remark I DID NOT use El mercurio as my source, but instead, a CNN report generating from Lima, Peru. Does CNN also have a Chilean POV? And most importantly; Did you take your time to actually read the article thoroughly?
 * Obviously, newspapers as many other sources take an editorial stance, and that’s one of the main reasons I decided not to include a reference from either country.
 * Do you think that approach is neutral or biased?
 * Likeminas (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don’t know if I misread or you‘re just contradicting yourself;
 * “The information concerning Donayre is, no matter whether CNN or some other place writes it, is completely describing a Chilean PoV”
 * So CNN writes from a completely Chilean POV, even if the report originates from Lima, Peru? Interesting...
 * “Peru.com does present a degree of PoV in terms of how Peru sees things”
 * Doesn’t that constitute a Peruvian POV? But also don’t CNN or El Mercurio reports as they see things also? Moreover, Doesn't their stature of prestigious institutions give them a certain degree of leverage over “websites” such as Peru.com?
 * Today, I read a report from the BBC which says:
 * ''Guibovich asumió el cargo en una ceremonia a la que acudieron el presidente del Consejo de Ministros, Yehude Simon, y el ministro de Defensa, Ántero Flores-Aráoz, entre otras autoridades.
 * Y en su primera alocución pública, Guibovich, manifestó que "el poder de las armas... nunca más debe tener injerencia en los temas políticos", lo que para muchos, fue una clara alusión al episodio que protagonizó Donayre''
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/latin_america/newsid_7768000/7768603.stm
 * Perhaps, we should include that Gen. Donayre’s remarks were indented in a political way?
 * But then again, I'd be risking an argument from you that says that BBC is also writing from a Chilean POV since it’s not from Peru.


 * Or perhaps We should also say that the video surfaced just in time when he was being investigated for alleged corruption charges, so that, his image improves on the public opinion?
 * Now that might be considered a Chilean POV, but you see, the media here also report things as they see it.


 * If I call you a stubborn moron, even in the context of an argument I’m still calling you a stubborn moron. Words have literal meanings even in the context of a joke or an argument, so do the general’s remarks.
 * In any case, my point is not weather his remarks are justifiable or barbaric. That should be left for the reader to decide.
 * We could include information from the media of both countries over a minor misunderstanding, and I can assure you that, then, there would be plenty of POV’s from both sides. By using a neutral source, such as CNN or BBC we can avoid a dispute, which, can certainly escalate into a full-fledged debate.
 * Likeminas (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Chile
You have to provide a source if you want to make a change to the article. The source does not say the cacique was Picunche, and you have provided no source that says so. Please refrain from making disruptive edits to Wikipedia. Thank you. ☆ CieloEstrellado 14:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Mapa
Te felicito por el mapa. --Resvoluci (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * el mapa

¿a quién se podría acudir para restar las provincias de Brasil? ¿hay otro de México? Saludos--Resvoluci (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Gibberish
I see you are still wrecking the Bicycle Kick article with uninteligable gibberish like:


 * "However, the game in which the bicycle kick was allegedly invented is older than 1894 as Jorge Basadre, a famous Peruvian historian, found what is thus far the oldest record of a football match in the Lima-Callao area of Peru to have been organized by Englishmen of the Lima Cricket and Football Club for a game between Chalacos and Limeans played in August 7, 1892; meaning that by that time football had gained popular practice in Callao and Lima, which is a situation that is ahead of the introduction of football in Callao and the invention of the bicycle kick associated with it."

Not only does it display awful misuse of the English language, but "the game in which the bicycle kick was allegedly invented is older than 1894" is not supported by any of the following text in any way. Please remove it and if you wish to make such claims, please find a reliable primary source. King of the North   East  00:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also please try to avoid contaminating articles with your own personal point of view, unqualified statements such as "Nonetheless, the best explanation to the invention was provided by......" are inapropriate for an encyclopaedia. King of the  North   East  00:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Advice
Look I hope this can be the end of the argument, I don't care to defend myself against your attacks any more and will try again to make you understand what I have been trying to say all along. You are obviously proud of your Peruvian heritage and spend your spare time trying to improve articles about Peru, unfortunately some of your edits do not seem to be made from a neutral piont of veiw that is befitting of an encyclopaedia. Please carefully reveiw the contents of the following links:
 * Tendentious editing
 * Neutral Point of View
 * Original Research especially Synthesis of published material which advances a position
 * Ownership
 * Consensus
 * Reliable Sources

You may also find these links helpful:
 * Linking
 * Disambiguation
 * Not a dictionary
 * Manual of Style
 * What Wikipedia is not

In cases where you find yourself in confrontation with another editor, please use the following guidelines.
 * No Personal Attacks
 * Civility
 * Assume Good Faith

Please do not interpret this comment as an attack, it is not intended as one. King of the North   East  23:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

this edit was unnecessary, as you well know. I suggest that KOTNE lets it go as I am warning marshal here. Marshal, enough is enough and any comments you make like the one above simply cast doubt on your motivations and good faith. I suggest you refractor the comment, apologize to KOTNE and simply let one another go your separate ways. Thanks. Theseeker4 (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You expect me to "refractor the comment" after all of you allow him to get away with him calling me a series of things, which I have properly listed in the topic, for which he has little to no proof on rather than his personal opinion? I have great respect for your help, but my motivations and good faith have already been shown to be good. I expressed my peaceful solution to "KOTNE," and he replied stating that my peaceful comment was another attack from me. As you see above, KOTNE sent me an "advice," and I thanked him for it. If you do not see that as a show of good faith and motivation from my part (which sharply contrasts to his reaction to my comment), then there is really nothing more that I can do. My comment in the Wikiquette topic has nothing wrong to it as all I did was simply use the name that the user used to refer to himself; I suggest you tell "KOTNE" to withdraw the derogative term he used to describe himself, and then I will properly withdraw mine. Ta ta.--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do what you will. Neither of you are willing to actually assume good faith of the other and it seems you each have to have the last word.  I believe you both really want to improve the encyclopedia, but I don't believe either of you believes that about one another.  I don't know what else to suggest or do, I have no interest in escalating this dispute at all, I simply have hoped I could mediate a resolution.  That does not seem possible, so good luck and I hope both of you can edit successfully without anyone bringing this dispute to the next level.  (Oh, and refractor was a typo, I obviously meant refactor) Theseeker4 (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hahaha. That's fine, I did not know that "refractor" was incorrectly spelled. I have never used the word "refactor" in my life, until now (I suppose). Well, for the sake of keeping the relative peace, I will "refactor" my comment from the Wikiquette page; but do not expect me to apologize to "KOTNE" (This is, quite sadly, the only limit of my goodwill). As having been me the person to have posted the issue at the wikiquette page, I sincerely thank you for your attempt at mediating this problem. Have a wonderful week.--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 01:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:PeruOlympics1936.png}
Thank you for uploading File:PeruOlympics1936.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kit evolution of the Peru national football team
An article that you have been involved in editing, Kit evolution of the Peru national football team, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Kit evolution of the Peru national football team. Thank you. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Peru squads
If you consider that the article should be deleted as the only significant contributor, you can add the tag to it. It would probably be much quiker to transfer any important data to the main article and then db-author it than wait for the merge proposal to end, this process usually take many months to conclude. King of the North   East  21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:FPF Logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:FPF Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:1936 Peru Olympians Returning.png)
Thanks for uploading File:1936 Peru Olympians Returning.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Club de Gimnasia y Esgrima La Plata
I know you've taken an interest in the GA review; do you want to take over the review, or should I continue? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess I will continue doing the major review. However, please, add a comment whenever you feel it necessary. I always appreciate extra help in a review (and this looks to be a long one). Thanks, Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've changed a bit the lead of the article, but i want to know if it's ok now. If it's not, could you help me with that item? My english is not the best to make something more interesting. If you can't help me, tell me, and I'll try to find another person. --Tincho GELP (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

your edit summary
I think you are experienced enough to know that edit summaries such as this are not acceptable in Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * lol. Don't write on my talk page if that is all you have to say. That's just how I roll. Good bye.--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I could have given you a warning for personal attacks. which would be consistent with Wikipedia official policy. LibStar (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no personal attack in the edit summary. Grow up. Timeshift (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

before you jump in you might note there was a disagreement between myself and MarshalN20 regarding a statement in, the edit summary is a direct reference to me. so stop jumping to conclusions, timeshift. LibStar (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Learn to capitalize the first letter of a sentence and get out of my talk page!!! That is, unless you have anything actually constructive to say. I made no such personal attack on you, by the way. You're just being paranoic.--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * you deny making a personal attack just like you can't distinguish between statement of opinion vs fact. by the way, failing to capitalize is not as bad as using a word that doesn't even exist in English http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paranoic LibStar (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I already told you to leave my talk page if you don't have anything constructive to mention. Stop acting so childish and quit hating on my amazing ability to invent words. Just because you lost an argument to me does not give you the right to be a sore loser. You should be proud that big daddy MarshalN20 even has the pitty to respond to noobs that post bad comments such as yours.--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I never lost any argument. you should read the policy on no personal attacks because your comment above is full of it ,your comment on the pettiness of not capitalizing is classical WP:KETTLE on your part. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument is childish. Once again, please stop posting on my talk page if you don't have anything constructive to say.--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:KETTLE. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * lol. Seriously, please stop with the childish argument. Your paranoia that I have made personal attacks on you make no sense. Remember to assume good faith.--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

also you can't even spell pitty. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you continue bothering me on my talk page? I already told you that if you don't have anything constructive to mention, then stop being such a sore loser and please leave my talk page.--&#91;&#124;!*//MarshalN20\\*!&#124;&#93; (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Hector Chumpitaz.png
Thank you for uploading File:Hector Chumpitaz.png. 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. Radiant chains (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Racismo?
Hola, porque dices que es racista la aseveración de que en Chile el aporte afro... sea insignificante... solo los llegados desde Peru con la incursión en la guerra del pacífico y la anexión de Tarapaca llegó un número relativamente importante de gente de origen africano, pues la mayoría de la población de Arica en dominio peruano era de raza negra, pero con la anexión a Chile muchos fueron expulsados a Peru o abandonaron el pais por sus propios medios. Hoy en día su aporte racial es insignificante no llega ni al 0,1% de la población chilena.--190.208.86.19 (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

PD: 600.000 descendientes de alemanes en Peru, dame fuentes serias para ello. Es imposible que menos de 2.000 alemanes emigrados a Peru, tengan tanta descendecia, es casi iluso. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.208.86.19 (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Las fuentes las pondre, pues es irrisoria las cifras--190.208.86.19 (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Un Bloq es una referencia seria?...--190.208.86.19 (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Counter productive editing ruins the spirit of the project
I (with Cruzville) started the Croats of Chile wikipage a few days ago and you changed the name from Croats of Chile to Croatian Chilean without any discussion. You made no significant contribution to it apart from renaming it – this is very counter productive and goes against the respect editors general convey to each other in this project.

On your edit you stated: "Moved in order to fit according to other articles such as German Chilean". But this page wasn’t started as part of a series on Chilean immigration it was started as Part of a Series on Croats – by region or country. (within the Wikiproject Croatia).

I linked this page to a page in spanish wikipedia Inmigración croata en Chile because it was related to the one I started – but I have been unable to discuss the page with the principal editor who is probably from Chile. This Spanish page appears to be part of an attempt to create a series on immigrations in Chile (but it isn’t part of any specific wikiproject) so it started from a different point – the page I started was within Series on Croats. The link between these two project has to be discussed so that the information can be shared and some how serve both the project in Spanish/Chilean and that in English/Series of Croats.

Whether there is any validity to the change of page you introduced is not the point the point is that it should have been discussed. I would appreciate if you undid this change of name or I will have to start a discussion on it within the Project Croatia – which would be a great waste of time, time that I could use to further research the topic and expand the article. Regards, - Cruzville & Chilevic (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Peru CopaAmerica 1975Champs.png)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Peru CopaAmerica 1975Champs.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 16:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Coursework

 * I guess you are unaware that Wikipedia servers are not supposed to be used as a free storage facility for your schoolwork? King of the  North   East  20:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Page name dispute: Marshall & Chilevic
Please read my analysis and view on the Croatian Chilean discussion page Cruzville (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Croatian Chilean
Thanks for you quick reply on the Croatian Chilean discussion page. I made a comment to User talk:IanManka about an editor you also may have had some issues with "190.208.86.19". You may be interesting in reading the comment, reflect on it and maybe give your views on it too. Cruzville (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hola!
I saw your kind offer to help review Spanish sources. It would be good to improve Iceland–Mexico relations a bit as I've seen better supported articles than this still get deleted, even when the majority of votes are for keep. For me, the most promising source looked to be this one: the two presidents meet Is this a government or a press source? Does it describe them just talking about cooperation relating to climate change or do they talk about anything else? If you could either let me know here or edit the article direct yourself it would be appreaciated. Gracias! FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

War of the Pacific talk page
MarshalN20, you have now you have gone from being a neutral editor on that discussion to being a vehement defense advocate for Arafael. Perhaps, you should let him elaborate for himself a bit. After all he’s the one disputing the statement and has barely written a persuasive argument, much less made a convincing case for the inclusion of the other interpretations. I was thinking that maybe, you can help out in writing a neutral statement that mentions both versions, while giving the appropiate weight to each one of them. What do you say? Likeminas (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

welcome
Welcome to the project. Ikip (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis Napoles
Just so you know, I have mentioned you ---> Here. Red thoreau (talk)RT 13:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Peru Coaches.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Peru Coaches.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Peru National Football Team
Yeah. Why not? If the article needs a small size, you will make the best changes. --Eduardocombe (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * FAC can seem a harsh mistress if you haven't been through the process before. I just wanted to reiterate that comments there are in no way intended to belittle to work you have put in - you've taken the article a long way. It is one of those cases where a visit to peer review would have been beneficial before FAC, in order to point out the areas likely to be raised (I try to comment on most football-related peer reviews). I'm going to refrain from putting any more comments on the FAC, as long discussions about specific points put off other potential reviewers, but if you wish I can list further points on article talk. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Seleccionperu.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Seleccionperu.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --J Milburn (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replied at the discussion. J Milburn (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's no big deal, I realise how stressful FAC can be! Good luck. J Milburn (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

review
Could you review War of the Pacific discusion? Arafael (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an offensive and deffensive alliance signed in 1866 between Peru and Chile
 * Aprobando Tratado de Alianza ofensiva y defensiva, celebrado entre las Repúblicas de Perú y Chile
 * Arafael (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Las Canarias = Canary Islands
I don't agree with your translation of "Great Telescope Canaries", as it sounds a little bit strange to a native English speaker. If you go to http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canarias you'll see it's linked to the English Canary Islands page. Personally I would prefer the translation that was there before. - Ttwaring (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My point was merely that a typical translation of "Canarias" into English is "Canary Islands", which is how English people commonly refer to the archipelago and administrative division. Hence Canaries links to a disambiguation page in the English Wikipedia, and Canary Islands goes to what would be "Canarias" in Spanish. I was just trying to help, but you don't seem convinced! Let's leave it there... Ttwaring (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like British journalists were using "Great Canary Telescope" -, - which sounds good to me - Ttwaring (talk) 01:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Warnings
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia.

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them.

Likeminas (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Likeminas (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Attributing sentence to author
I typed up this response to your "Attributing sentence to author" question at the Ref Desk (which you seem to have deleted). Instead of dumping the response, I'll give it to you here:


 * Using the "According to ..." phrasing casts more doubt on the statement. That is, mentioning that it is "according to" one person draws attention to the fact that there are others who disagree. Using just the reference, on the other hand, implies that the statement is generally accepted by most people familiar with the subject. In your case, the fact that the nationality of the writer is included further changes the statement, implying that being Peruvian is somehow relevant to Vegas's assessment of the situation. - The character of the underlying statements is the ultimate arbiter of what is best. If they are generally accepted statements, and we're just using Vegas as an authoritative reference, the second option would likely be preferred. If, however, there is serious disagreement among historians as to the veracity of the statements, drawing attention to who said it and their potential biases is a good thing. However, if it is indeed every other sentence getting this treatment, a better form may be to use separate paragraphs, with only the first sentence doing the disclaiming and following sentences being left with an implicit disclaimer. (e.g. "According to {Scholar 1} ... {Sentence}. {Sentence}. ... {Sentence}. {Paragraph break} {Scholar 2} disagrees, stating that ... {Sentence}. {Sentence}. {Sentence}.) I'd suggest dropping a note on the user's talk page asking what concerns he's trying to address. It could be a simple misreading of the WP:Neutral point of view and Avoid weasel words policies, thinking (incorrectly) that every time we reference someone, we need to explicitly say who it is in the text. -- 128.104.112.87 (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

War of the Pacific
Hey, can you wait a little bit with the edits on thew War of the Pacific article? The topics are not settled yet. I would be more productive to engage in the discussions on the talk page. Dentren |  Ta lk  19:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

templates
My sincere apologies, I thought I saw you removing the template at the top of the section.

ps: ref # 62 seems to be broken tough. Likeminas

Thanks for the conciliatory tone Marshall. I think things got a bit more heated than they should have. This has proven to be a difficult subject, but I assure I have no personal vendetta against you.

Starting tomorrow I will be pretty busy, but once I'm done, I will come back to the article. And I'm looking forward to working with you in a dispassionate and amicable manner.

Salu2

Likeminas

Assistance with new editor
Marshall, I know we’ve had our differences in the past, but I still consider you a reasonable editor, that’s why I’m assuming good faith with you, and I won’t presuppose that you were canvassing here but given that you invited him, it would be, perhaps, helpful if you interceded and explained to him the NPOV rule when there are contradicting sources. I did try myself, but he seems unwilling to work something out. In fact, he seems to be taking a similar stance as Keysanger, which –in my opinion- is quite counterproductive and perhaps even detrimental to the discussion. Please help out. Let’s improve the article in a collective and cooperative manner. It’s definitively doable. Cheers, Likeminas (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)