User talk:MarshalN20/Archive 4

Succession table
Hi there. I'm happy to take on board any constructive feedback whether I agree with it or not. However, your use of the word awesome really made my day. Thank you.  Claret Ash  14:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidents
Hi MarshallN20

I raised a report to Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents where you are mentioned. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, another fun moment.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 15:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidents
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 09:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Wine and Pisco
Congratulations for the work and nomination of Pisco Sour for GA status. However I think we both have failed in noticing each others work, in thw histoy section of New World Wine I have put large pieces of sourced information regarding vineyards and wine in both Chile and Peru. I think the background section of Pisco Sour could include the facts: and most importantly:
 * 1) that the Ica-Pisco region was the main wine growing region of Peru. In fact the "Cusco wine" seems more like an anecdote, than something of true significance.
 * 2) that first vines in America were most likely drived from the Mónica grape (from Spain and Sardinia), from which Negra peruana (and País, and Mission and Chica criolla) comes.
 * 3) That Potosí and Lima fueled early demand in aguardiante
 * 1) That Peru shifted production from wine to pisco in late colonial times

-Chiton magnificus (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added some of the relevant historical information to the article, but not all since its to much and belong rather in a Peruvian wine article or in the history section of pisco. While I enjoyed the juicy Lima hotel stories on pisco sour I felt that Chilean consumption and production is not adressed enought. When did pisco sour became popular in Chile? Also the fact that much of pisco sour is bottled is also no adressed. Production and consumption numbers are also omited. Which shoud not be so difficult to find.Chiton magnificus (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks
Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.2.193 (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Botany status
Please see Talk:Botany. Thank you. 512bits (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cambalachero (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Botany article
I saw here on your page that you are in some copy editor group. Could you look over the botany article and see what you think? Is anything lacking? Also, I still want to make it as good as I can so what should I do next?512bits (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See answer there.512bits (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the intro in order to help get it ready for GA candidacy. Improvements by you are appreciated. 512bits (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've nominated this for GA now. Big thanks to you for all your kind help.512bits (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I appologize
If you were offended by my remarks on my talk page, I didn't mean to compare you to George Zimmerman--it's just that his name came to mind when I saw the phrase "Peruvian stalker". This is not the first time my attempts at humor have been misinterpreted by other users, so I think it's a sign that I have been careless with my attempted jokes. Again sorry, and I would gladly help out with that article you mentioned. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not angry at you, but thank you for the apology. What is most valuable to me from your message is that you are allowing me a chance to demonstrate that I am not the creepy character painted by Lecen. Also, please pardon my challenge to your claim, but your joke was indeed quite funny. Crude humor is also humor, although it did hurt (but that's part of the point to crude humor). In any case, it was not you who started the comedy play, but rather Lecen. While your joke is a needle in a haystack, Lecen's humor comes from a box of personal attacks that cannot reasonably allow me to think of it in good faith.
 * If you really want to help me with the Pisco Sour article, I would be indebted to your kindness. However, given the rather unplesant circumstances, please do not think of it as a necessity (i.e., only check it if you feel like it). For the time being, the article is a dead body that has been a burden to me for a while now (see the pun? Hehe). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 23:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words, it's good to hear that you're not angry. It will be interesting to read that article; ironically I'm actually a designated driver tonight :) Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Datos de la CIA sobre etnografía no es fidedigna
Hola Marshal, he revisado los datos de la CIA sobre la etnografía de otros países y comparándolos con lo que hay en las páginas de Wikipedia en inglés no soinciden. Los Estados Unidos no toma como referencia a los datos CIA. Te invito a que leeas un artículo de mi blog que trata sobre estos porcentajes.--KobainCRSTN (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pisco Sour
The article Pisco Sour you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Pisco Sour for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Falkland Islands
Hi MarshalN20, I have left a message for you at Talk:Falkland Islands. Martinvl (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Cisplatine War
MarshalN20, i noticed you reverted the Cisplatine War article to a vandalized version. I restored the previous version, which was a consensus solution of a long debate both on the talk page and the history logs.

I understand you did your edition in good faith, however the version you reverted to was basically a vandalism by 186.58.73.206/164.85.68.12, who added several unscientifical comments to the article based on his POV (mostly, derrogatory comments about the outcome of the war and comments such as "if you ignore the fact that the Brazilian Empire lost Uruguay" after sentences based on multiple independent sources) in order to change the appearance of the outcome of the war (which most authors interpretate as a minor victory for the Brazilian Empire, who managed to attain 2 out of it's 3 goals and destroy the United Provinces navy) in order to suit a nationalistic argentine POV.

As the previous edition was a consensus version, the mere disgruntlement of that IP would not be a valid reason to take down a well debated version, so i undid that edition.

Anyway, if you got any questions, ask me on my IP.

And by the way, i found that reference by Daniel Stowell very interesting to my research. Is it available in the internet for free, or only in JSTOR?

-189.34.172.112 (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Opinion
Marshall it would be helpful to have your opinion on this and and this. Chiton (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Viceroyalty
La bandera de borgoña no es de ningún virreinato. La división de virreinatos estuvon abolida durante los periodos de la constitución de Cádiz, en que América estaba dividida en Provincias Constitucionales. Poner el virreinato del Perú sólo y aislado no tiene sentido, da la información falsa de que sólo Vice.Perú combatió. Eso no es verdad. Además una lista exahustiva de los dominios españoles en la ficha es innecesaria, pero si te empeñas en poner una lista deberías hacer un anexo con la lista de dominios americanos leales y podría ser una solución.

The flag of Burgundy is by no viceroyalty. The division of "viceroyalties" was abolished during the periods of the Constitution of Cadiz, when America was divided into "provinces Constitutional". Put the Viceroyalty of Peru alone and isolated as combatant, it makes sense, given the false information that only Vice.Perú fought. That's not true. Besides an exhaustive list of the Spanish dominions in the infobox is unnecessary, but if you insist on putting a list should do an annex with the list of domains and loyal Americans could be a solution. --Santos30 (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "The Cross of Burgundy was used as the representative war flag of the Spanish viceroyalties" No original research.--Santos30 (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"Liga Federal" bueno una banderita más y nada más, pero ¿qué ha mejorado el infobox o el artículo?. Mejor haga usted un buen cuadro resúmen para el cuerpo del artículo de los países hispanoamericanos resultantes y desaparecidos en la independencia ¿no?.--Santos30 (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I recomend you bouth (Santos and Marshal) to discuss the flag thing here: Talk:Spanish_Empire in order to have an unified discussion on the representative flags of the Spanish Empire. Chiton (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Marshal te he respondido y te he puesto un ejemplo en Imperio español para que lo coprendas mejor. Ves que las banderas de cruz de borgoña se parecen pero no son iguales (la historica tiene el escudo real y la moderna no lo tiene). He abierto el infobox de independencia hispanoamericana para poner banderas militares de la cruz de borgoña si lo deseas. La fuente que has aportado es terciaria pero se agradece, hacen muchas generalizaciones pero dejan claro que hasta la revolución francesa o estadounidense no hay banderas para representar a ningún estado nacional. Tu fuente habla de los colores rojo y blanco que eligió San Martín. Son sólo tradiciones peruanas nada más porque San Martín no explicó porqué eligió el rojo y blanco.
 * La cruz militar de borgoña no representa al virreinato del Perú ni a ningún lugar de América. Las provincias de América no son fuerzas militares ni fortalezas. América y el Virreinato del Perú incluido, formaban territorios integrantes de la corona de Castilla por tanto deben llevar sus escudos o estandartes territoriales ajustados según época. En las fichas de virreinatos pongo la primera bandera española (es la única que hubo) como símbolo de la tentativa de España de nacionalizar los vice-reinos y reinos castellanos de América y que fracasó por la independencia como sabemos.
 * Desgraciadamente desde el año 2006 que en WP-ES se impuso por editores nacionalistas españoles que la cruz militar de borgoña tenía que ser la bandera del Imperio español (sin más argumento que era la bandera militar más usada). Hubo latinos que mordieron el anzuelo para no ver la bandera roji-gualda española en la ficha (eso dejó más olvidado el conocimiento del estudio territorial de América). Y además van difundiendo también sus invenciones de que "España" se constituyó en 1500 o en 1700 y van confundiendo a medio planeta. Porque el estado nacional español sólo existe desde su primera constitución (1812), lo mismo que los paises latinoamericanos, y ni un minuto antes. Pero su pretensión de querer ser un país nacional en 1500 o 1700 va de la mano con que América no tenía personalidad  y podía ser parte de cualquier territorio de España (como parte del reino de Aragón por ejemplo) y eso es completamente falso y ocurrente.
 * América formó parte de España sólo a través de Castilla. Eso es un hecho contrastadísimo. Y al final, como partes integrantes de Castilla cada junta americana defendió su libertad de incorporarse o no a España (y negó cualquier superioridad de las juntas peninsulares), lo que condujo al conflicto y la independencia finalmente. Te paso bibliografía para que puedas sacar tu mismo tus conclusiones. aquí es un buenresúmen y siguiendo este enlace la primera constituyente de España y luego El proceso de incorporacion de las Indias a Castilla . La cruz militar de borgoña es una bandera de las fuerzas armadas que por error de WP-ES no se puso la debida advertencia, pero ni son capaces de admitir con humildad que se han convertido en fuente primaria de esa fabulación que ha difundido su error. Y no admitiré que se imponga a la historia de América ése error.--Santos30 (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited José Faustino Sánchez Carrión, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal (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) 04:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Cebiche and lack of respect
I never intended not to respect anything, including the Peruvian choice of name for this plate (BTW I love "Cebiche a la peruana", with hot peppers, something less or even rarely used in Chilean cuisine). I respect the name choice in the dictionary of the RAE, cebiche; ceviche and the other one being redirects to the preferred name. All the best, amigo mio. --E4024 (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What I meant is that the plate's name is acceptable in various forms; it always has been and always will be. So you can call it any name you want to (whether it be seviche, sebiche, ceviche, cebiche, etc.), and there is no problem. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 00:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Regional power
Hello, would you mind to work towards a consensus rather than just reverting everything. Thanks. --Welshwind (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

FAC
I'm sorry we seem to have got off on the wrong foot at FAC, when I said "potentially interesting", I suppose I meant that the prose detracted from the interest, not that it was uninteresting per se. I see you a re a copy editors' guild member, so you probably didn't take kindly to my comment about a first-language speaker copy edit. Nevertheless, it's much harder to see errors in our own work than in that of others. Every word counts at FAC, and prose must be excellent. I still think that you would benefit from another pair of eyes, preferably from someone who knows their way around FAC and MOS (and I'm not volunteering, I don't consider myself a serious copy editor). As it stands, I've not even listed all the infelicities in the lead section, let alone the rest of the text. It's up to you if you want to try to clean up while its at FAC, or withdraw to work on it elsewhere, but there is a lot to do  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  15:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, peace is declared. I'll leave it to you. If you decide to continue, I'll go through and do a list of what I perceive to be fixable faults, you have a few to be going on with, and as a parting offering, here's another. Pisco Sour isn't a mixture of words, it's one followed by another. "Combination" might be better. I'm signing off for the evening soon,let me know what you decide  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  16:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate links detector. To install the script, add: importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js'); // User:Ucucha/duplinks to Special:MyPage/common.js. Clear cache (you will see an instruction to do this anyway). There will now be a link "Highlight duplicate links" in the toolbox on the left on every mainspace article.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll put some issues here to avoid cluttering the FAC page too much. Let's start with references.
 * your short form references to books are confusing, they are so long that they look like full refs, and have info, like the language, that should be, but isn't, in the cited texts. All you need is something on the lines of Smith & Jones (2012) pp. 234–245.
 * Cited texts should have the language parameter. Check that all have an isbn (if the latter exists, there are two 1981 books apparently without). Be consistent whether you include country of publication (New York)
 * Check that you format titles of books and articles consistently in terms of capitalisation, you don't have to stick to the original espcially if it's all caps.
 * In your refs you have forename-surname and in cited texts the reverse; this is unhelpful. Surname first is standard
 * Check that you have put in all the known info, ref 8 is missing its author, Pablo Lacoste
 * Don't give retrieval dates for books and journals if they have a physical presence in the real world, only for web-only sources.
 * Not obligatory, but think about using WebCite to archive any web only pages in danger of link rot

Section headings. You have "spread and popularity", "appraisal" "popularity". I'd be inclined to change the first to just "spread" or something similar, so you don't have two popularity sections. Also merge the other two as appraisal or whatever, the anecdote doesn't need a section of its own and it's of the same nature as the last section.

Lead.
 * The oldest mentions of the Pisco Sour so far found come from... &mdash; perhaps neater as The oldest known mentions of the Pisco Sour are from...
 * the Pisco Sour holds international attention as a topic of popular culture. &mdash; I've never even heard of the drink, and this looks rather sweeping to me. It's obviously significant in the two countries concerned, and for all I know in other Spanish speaking countries/regions, but I doubt that most Parisians, Canadians, Thais or Chinese know more about this drink than me  Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  06:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No rush, I'm going to be busy over the weekend anyway <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  06:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm very busy this weekend, but I'll go through properly as soon as I get the time next week <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  06:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gangnam Style, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quechua (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) 12:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Cisplatine War
Get informed: throughout the conflict Montevideo and Colonia remained under Brazilian control; Brazil wiped out the United Provinces Navy. And the blockade was quite effective, in front of Buenos Aires. If the Brazilian performance had been so bad, Uruguay would have become part of the United Provinces, which it did not.

Given that the outcome was a draw, the portrayal of the conflict you wanted to give is biased, unless you post other opinions (and there are many) contrary to that of Stowell.

Here is what Sir Richard Gordon said to Lord Ponsonby at that time: "Los recursos de este Imperio parecen inmnensos y creyendo como yo que Brown -grande como es- no puede con sus goletas aniquilar a la armada brasileña, simplemente tendrá Ud. al bloqueo restablecido con mayor vigor"187.36.81.70 (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You should study and learnt it then. The quote is clearly wrong. Brazil had the upper hand when it comes to the naval part of the conflict so much so that in the end the United Provinces lacked a proper navy to counter the conflict.

I can post other opinions as I said. The facts of the conflict speak for themselves anyway. Had it been a military victory, Argentina would have annexed Uruguay, which it did not. And it did not because it was suffering the economic consequences of the naval blockade Brazil imposed on Buenos Aires, its main place of interaction with the outside world, and Argentina at that time was heavily dependent on both exporting and importing goods. Brazil did manage to destroy the functionality of the United Provinces Navy, a fact which that opinion he posted is clearly omitting.187.36.81.70 (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Clearly wrong quotes from non specialists should not be welcome
This is the quote you so much wanted to post there:

''Although far superior to Argentine forces on paper, the Brazilian troops were repeatedly defeated. Plagued by poor leadership, inadequate supplies, corruption, disease, and a high desertion rate, the Brazilian army never gained an advantage over their adversaries.''|Daniel Stowell }}

Daniel Stowell is not a military historian, nor is he specialised in the history of Argentina, Brazil or Uruguay. The quote you claim would have come from this book, "Balancing Evils Judiciously", http://books.google.com.br/books/about/Balancing_Evils_Judiciously.html?id=fQTaGwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y, which is not about the subject at all: "For the first time, all the proslavery -- but also pro-black -- writings of Zephaniah Kingsley (1765-1843) appear together in one volume. Kingsley was a slave trader and the owner of a large plantation near Jacksonville in what was then Spanish East Florida. He married one of his slaves and had children with several others. Daniel Stowell carefully assembles all of Kingsley's writings on race and slavery to illuminate the evolution of his thought. The intriguing hybrid text of the four editions of the treatise clearly identifies both subtle and substantial differences among the editions. Other extensively annotated documents show how Kingsley's interracial family and his experiences in various slaveholding societies in the Caribbean and South America influenced his thinking on race, class, and slavery".

This is clearly not about the topic Cisplatine War at all. He was no expert, and his quote is clearly misleading.

'''Contrary to what the quote would imply, throughout the conflict:


 * The Brazilian Armed Forces blockaded Buenos Aires and caused serious economic consequences to them (Buenos Aires was basically the only place for interaction with the outside world, and the United Provinces were heavily dependent on exporting and importing United Provinces); you can read about these consequences from the Argentine themselves ("Los efectos de la guerra en la economía de las Provincias Unidas", http://www.ucema.edu.ar/ceieg/arg-rree/3/3-029.htm). Brazil lost some naval battles, but after the battle of Monte Santiago their navy was reduced practically to nothing, and they could no longer operate in high seas; Brazil had the naval supremacy right in front of Buenos Aires.


 * When it comes to the operations on land, if Rivera penetrated the territory of the Missões, if they won some battles (Sarandi and Ituzaingó), the results were, in fact, inconclusive, since they lacked the means to repel the Brazilian Forces, so much so that the two major cities of Uruguay at that time, Colonia and Montevideo remained under Brazilian control throughout the conflict.'''

In short, the quote you so much want to post is a biased portrayal of the conflict, a misleading one, not coming from a specialist. And it makes it look like the United Provinces won the conflict, which they did not, if they had Uruguay would have been annexed.187.36.81.70 (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * He is not an expert on the subject, nor is the book he wrote specifically addressing the conflict. You picked up a quote from someone who is not a military historian, nor a specialist on this conflict, nor in the history of Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, no matter his profession his opinion is simply wrong and gives a partial and inaccurate view of the conflict.187.36.81.70 (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

To MarshalN20: it is not about threatening. Due to the complexity of the conflict, one can but expect diverse views on it. An opinion from someone who is NOT an expert on the conflict in question, like Stowell, should not be referenced as some kind of authority at all.

If you want accuracy, why don't you post the pic of Brazilian troops in the Platine War parading in Buenos Aires? There is no controversy that Brazilian troops paraded in Buenos Aires. This is not an opinion, this is a fact. I guess that would be too much for you, wouldn't it? I am here to give a balanced and as neutral as possible view of issues involving Brazil, not to accept that someone will paint inaccurately what happened to my country, ok?187.36.81.70 (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tongo (entertainer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Godfather (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) 12:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tongo (entertainer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Teleton (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) 10:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
For the diplomatic endeavour. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Juan Manuel de Rosas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colorado Party (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) 11:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)