User talk:MarshalN20/Archive 5

Your comment at Lecen's talk page
MarshalN20, I wanted first to thank you for your contributions to the DRN discussion, which have been geared toward an equitable compromise, however I did want to highlight this which you posted on Lecen's talk. He brought it to my attention asking that I step in, and I agree that it was unwarranted. Please, let's try to de-escalate this situation rather than turn it into a case where both an Arbitration and a Mediation will be necessary. Thanks. Respectfully, Go   Phightins  !  20:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Will do. Certainly childish from my part. Sometimes I really can't help my "funny" side from coming out, but my objective was not to insult him. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 21:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

 * I request that you respond to the request for mediation when you are next online, or at least consider other steps of the dispute resolution process that you can take in order to resolve the disagreement concerning Juan Manuel de Rosas. As you know, editors of Wikipedia have a duty to engage in dispute resolution and consensus-building discussion when their edits are challenged. Your edits have been challenged. If there is anything I can do to assist you with responding to the mediation request, please let me know. Regards, AGK  [•] 15:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Mauá
Mauá was the wealthiest man during Pedro II's reign. He was a businessman and member of the Liberal Party, and was also a slave trader. The Empire of Brazil template does not have every single royal, politican, abolitionist or military officer in the history of the Empire. It has the two Emperors, the leading politicians in each decade of the Empire (the ones recognized as such by historians) and the commanders-in-chief of each Brazilian international war (Count of São João: Independence; Viscount of Lagina: Cisplatine War; Caxias: Platine War and Paraguayan War; Grenfell: Platine War; etc, etc... That doesn't include the "greatest military officers" (although some are regarded as such). That's why brilliant military officers such as Mallet (the Brazilian patrono of artillery), Sampaio (patrono of infantry) and others are not in the list. The same goes for the abolitionist list: the key characters in the abolitionist movement. --Lecen (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * List of managers of the Peru national football team (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Didí, William Cook, Vladimir Popović and José Fernández

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A fair warning
Perhaps you aren't aware of how the RfC works. It's not the place to talk about editors nor to bring past discussions that won't improve anything. I could, for example, have added Noleander's remarks about you two: "The other editors (MarshalN20 and Cambalachero) claim that the 'he is not a dictator' viewpoint is equally well represented by historians (and thus that the encyclopedia's voice should not be used per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) but when pressed for sources, they tend to obfuscate and stonewall (TLDR, etc)". Would it help anything? No, it wouldn't. Thus, I came here to ask you not to disrupt the dicussion. Let the other users share their thoughts based on the two points of view presented. --Lecen (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Here I am, asking you for a second time, not to disrupt the RfC. I'm asking you to allow the other users to see for themselves both views, not tainted by personal opinion against aynone. --Lecen (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Lecen (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit war on Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas.

While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.

If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus, and removing or modifying others' posts from talk pages is not permitted.

If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.

Continued edit warring on Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've fully protected Juan Manuel de Rosas. You and  can work it out on the talk page.   I suggest both of you do it nicely and avoid ad-hominum attacks or risk being blocked for WP:NPA, WP:TE, etc.   I suspect both of you can work it out though.  Toddst1 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that this is a good decision, although Lecen and Cambalachero were the main editors at that time (I merely did one revert). From my perspective, all of the monkey business in this discussion is being carried out by Lecen. Thanks again.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 21:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Erroneous block
I made an administrative error and momentarily blocked you, leaving a clear note of my error in your block log upon unblocking. I don't see any autoblock, but if you do end up with one, it should be quickly cleared. My apologies for any inconvenience. Toddst1 (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 1978 FIFA World Cup Group 4


The article 1978 FIFA World Cup Group 4 has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Page duplicates and fork content from 1978_FIFA_World_Cup, which is unecessary

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Eduemoni↑talk↓  03:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Siege of Callao (1826)

 * The flag of Real felipe of Callao was red and yellow (as all naval spanish fortifications from 1700). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.152.51.59 (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate that you considered my comments and consider you revised text to explain the matter in a much more coherent way. Un abrazo. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the message. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 23:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Sweet! Thank you, Langus.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 17:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Quick note
Hi Marshall, in case you didn't notice I'm letting you know there's a similar discussion to the one happening in Falkland Islands (about the results of the referendum) going on over at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. It started here and continued here. If you have the time (and the willingness to get involved in another mess :) your input will surely be much appreciated. Regards. Gaba (talk)  14:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have responded to it, thank you for the note.
 * Hopefully my position does not seem ambivalent. I consider the Falkland Islands article a completely separate matter from the other article. The former is much closer to WP:SUMMARY, and needs a few more upgrades to reach GA status. On the other hand, the latter article is much more convoluted, and requires sentences with greater explanation. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 17:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood and although we disagree on the lack of need for this info in Falkland Islands, I thank you very much for your input. Regards. Gaba  (talk)  17:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation for Mediation
You are invited to take part in a mediation regarding articles of your concern. The link is below: Thank you, --Lecen (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Requests for mediation/Argentine history on Wikipedia

Arbitration case opened
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 12, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ  21  22:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC) —  ΛΧΣ  21  22:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Evidence word count limit on Argentine History case
Hi MarshalN20, this message is to let you know that arbitrator has allowed an extension of the evidence word count in the following manner: An initial statement regarding the dispute (1000 words) and a second statement discussing reliability of the sources in detail (up to 2000 words). The second statement also has to comply with the following conditions:

Thanks, — ΛΧΣ  21  00:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure how you feel about this, but the whole matter is really boring. In any case, thanks for the message.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 01:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm back
Thanks for the support. Those have been really complicated days, but things are starting to get in order again. In fact, I was lucky in comparison with other people, I simply had a blackout, I had to stay cleaning for days and lost some computer devices, books, shoes and a mattress, but other people lost everything. This isn't the first time there is a flood, but it was far more severe than prvious ones. Cambalachero (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long
Hello, MarshalN20. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Argentine History Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1186 words and 32 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Hers fold ArbClerkBOT(talk) 02:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Peru national football team (Recent call-ups)
What does "recent call-ups" mean? If a player is named to the team and that player plays in that match should not he be included in that list?! IP user 98.231.216.196 has removed Cristian Benavente from said list twice now. Raul17 (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The term "recent call-ups" is standard in most football national team articles. I do not like that term as it sounds un-encyclopedic and causes confusion. Essentially, it means a player that has recently participated in the national team but has not played the most recent match. In the current case, Benavente would be part of the "Current squad" but not the "recent call-ups". If Benavente does not play in Peru's next match, then will he be removed from the "current squad" and placed into "recent call-ups".

Hope this helps.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 00:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. But it should be removed because it is confusing and it is un-encyclopedic!! Thanks Raul17 (talk) 00:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I like it. A lot cleaner than the "original". Raul17 (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't know if you can help
I am aware that David Jewett played a notable role in the early history of the Brazillian Navy but can't find too many sources in the English language. Its a gap in the article at the moment IMHO. I know User:Lecen suggested there was material available in Portuguese but really could do without the hassle involving in asking him for assistance. By any chance are you aware of any sources I could use. My Spanish is passable but I really struggle with Portuguese. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Help requested
Hi Marshal,

I have a favor to ask you if you have the time. There's a discussion going on over at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute that has been going for well over a month now and we're stucked. The issue is about two Argentine claims in the article (the ones tagged [not in citation given]) I know it's a lot to go through but we would all appreciate your effort, we've asked an admin (Dpmuk) but he didn't have the time to do it. Seeing as how you are one of the top contributors to Falkland related articles it would be much easier for you to follow what's being discussed. If you can/want, could you please open a RfC or a WP:DRN? I'd suggest trying with a DRN since the last couple of RfCs opened for discussions in that article had very little if no engagement from outside editors, but I trust your good judgment on which one is more suited. If you don't have the time or are not willing to get involved in the discussion (which would be understandable) I'll see about opening one myself (I haven't done so because it would mean an immediate accusation of not NPOV by one of the editors involved, but if there's no other choice I'll just have to do it) Cheers. Gaba (talk)  12:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Farewell
Hope the arbcom case works out and my contribution helped. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Photography reply
--Kevjonesin (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Back for more Botany
It's been almost exactly a year. I came back to see if we can make the botany article better. If you have ideas, let me know. I hope you are well.512bits (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Botany
Can you answer the question here about "getting ready for featured". Thank you. 512bits (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment/question at talk:botany. 512bits (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A new question about review process for you on talk botany. I may or may not be ready for it now depending on what one person helping me says. 512bits (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Argentine History: Proposed decision posted
Hello MarshalN20. I am sending you this message to let you know that the proposed decision of the Argentine History arbitration case in which you are a party, has been posted and is now being discussed by the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ  21  03:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

El Inca
You moved this page yesterday to "Inca Garcilaso de la Vega"; this was without reference to the article talk page (here) or discussing the matter beforehand. I've moved it back; the title in use does distinguish him already from the Spanish poet of the same name, and your chosen format "Inca Garcilaso..." (without the definite article) has a racist undertone in English ("Jew Suss" for example, or "Bantu Steve Biko") If you feel the current title is incorrect or inadequate I would invite you to respond on the talk page (here) or to make a request move and state your reasons there. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello from User:Technical_13
Hello. I'm using Lupin's vandal tool and misclicked on [rollback] on that edit. It brought up an "edit" page which I quickly closed and thought that would cancel the [rollback] but apparently was incorrect on that matter. Thanks for fixing it. Technical 13 (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peru national football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Castellano (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) 11:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

El Inca, again
I don’t know whether you really don’t get this, or whether this is just a wind-up, but I’ll try explaining this again. I don’t know the equivalent in Spanish; I do know that in most places in the English-speaking world, addressing someone as “boy” is a harmless familiarity, but in some states in the US it is an insult (and in one town is actually against the law). I know that in France there is a difference between addressing someone as tu and vous, and that tu is the familiar form; what I only learned recently is that tu is also used when addressing servants, so that a misjudgement in the degree of familiarity with someone can lead you to insulting them. These are the pitfalls when using a second language. So if I said something in Spanish, and you said to me “careful, that could be taken as an insult” I would probably reply ”OK, thanks for the tip”. I would not be saying “well I don’t see what is wrong with it, so I am going to carry on saying it anyway”. D’you see? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are the one that wrote to me stating "careful, that could be taken as an insult" (Inca could be seen as an insult in English). I am the one who accepted your view with an "OK, thanks for the tip". However, you then write that "but adding a 'the' to the name makes it good". At this point, you are the one who is pushing for the title of "El Inca" while I am going for the title of "chronicler" (and this is not even a Daffy Duck v Bugs Bunny sketch where I intentionally confused you into flipping your view from rabbit season to duck season). Which one of us carrying on the possibly insulting term?-- MarshalN20 | T al k 13:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Pisco Sour
This is a note to let the main editors of Pisco Sour know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 15, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or one of his delegates (,, and ), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/July 15, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

A Pisco Sour is a cocktail typical of South American cuisine. The drink's name is a combination of the word pisco, which is its base liquor, and the term sour, in reference to sour citrus juice and sweetener components. Chile and Peru both claim the Pisco Sour as their national drink, and each asserts exclusive ownership of both pisco and the cocktail. The Peruvian Pisco Sour uses Peruvian pisco as the base liquor and adds Key lime (or lemon) juice, syrup, ice, egg white, and Angostura bitters. The Chilean version is similar, but uses Chilean pisco, Pica lemon, and excludes the bitters and egg white. The cocktail was invented by Victor Vaughn Morris, an American bartender working in Peru in the early 1920s. In Chile, the invention of the drink is attributed to Elliot Stubb, an English ship steward, in a bar in the port city of Iquique in 1872, although the source for this attributed the invention of whiskey sour to Stubb, not Pisco Sour. The two kinds of pisco and the two variations in the style of preparing the Pisco Sour are distinct in both production and taste, and the Pisco Sour has become a significant and oft-debated topic of Latin American popular culture. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * MarshallN20, congratulations on your role in improving the Pisco Sour article to reach this status. It will get a lot of page views on July 15! By the way, I did some editing of the above summary at Today's featured article/July 15, 2013. Please take a look at the current draft. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)