User talk:MarshalN20/Archive 8

Your GA nomination of Falkland Islands
The article Falkland Islands 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 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Falkland Islands for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Falkland Islands
The article Falkland Islands you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Falkland Islands for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- 02:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm deeply honored. Thank you, Cambalachero.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 13:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

AN Notice
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Request Block Review of User:MarshalN20 by User:Sandstein". Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry but after further discussion with User:EatsShootsAndLeaves in his talk page, I've realised I may not be helping you so I've withdrawn it. My advice would be to write your own appeal and ask for it to be copy pasted to WP:AN for review.  Please note the suggestion, it has to be your appeal, don't copy and paste mine.  Wee Curry Monster talk 11:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * . Thank you for the help. It remains astounding to me that they are going to claim the article is a "history article" when I created and wrote it! (see ).
 * Not only that, but I did this in 2007, over six years ago, when I had next to no idea how to write a Wikipedia article! The Chile-Peru football rivalry is simply not a history topic.
 * User:EatsShootsAndLeaves went to Peru and Chile during his professional life? Good for him! That doesn't make his position any more valid than if he was to claim "he had black friends" and is, based solely on that, "not racist".
 * None of this makes sense.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you're being unfair to him Marshal on that point and to be honest, given you wrote the lede it does kind of undermines the defence I made of you. Whilst I agree with you this was a football article and its a overly broad interpretation of your ban, you need to write your own appeal per WP:GAB.  When I appealed mistakenly on your behalf I think I made the basis of a case for a block review.  You need to write an appeal for yourself in your own words.  I'd offer to help but at this point wonder if I would make it worse. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * . The lead I wrote for the article, in 2007, was merely to reflect its status as a stump.
 * A better lead would be: "The Chile-Peru football rivalry is a sports rivaly that exists between the national football teams of both countries, their club teams, and their respective fans."
 * Just two weeks ago Chile and Peru's U-18 squads played again (see ; in Spanish), and the Peruvian press talked about how Peru "took revenge" and defeated Chile ("se tomó revancha"). How on Earth is this not a current event?
 * Anyhow, could you please copy-paste my appeal above? I wrote it yesterday, but the template apparently keeps hiding it.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 15:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, you should have rewritten it per WP:LEDE. I will post that appeal if you request me to but I would advise you to take some time and write a more considered appeal.  Your choice.  Wee Curry Monster talk 15:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Unsubtle hint - you were editing warring. See WP:NOTTHEM OK? Wee Curry Monster talk 15:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In 2007, I didn't even know WP:LEDE existed. You've known me for some time, and surely you have to agree that I used to be a complete idiot in my early editing days. Maybe I am still an idiot, but not to the extent I was in the past.
 * While the rules do state that I have to write my own appeal, there is nothing prohibiting you (or anyone else) from providing suggestions for improvement to my appeal. Could you please provide me more suggestions? Thanks in advance.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 15:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * TBH you can still be an idiot, I can too and I'm only just starting to recognise some of my faults.
 * I would suggest you ask for a mentor per WP:MENTOR. If I'm honest, I regularly see you doing stuff that makes you a target and you need to edit smarter.  You have one of my faults which is to argue with idiots.  There is an expression about wrestling pigs, after a while rolling in the mud, you recognise the pig is enjoying it.  You need to learn to disengage.  This is difficult to do but I have been quite surprised at the results that come from it, I've taken advise from my own mentor User:Nick-D and it really has worked for me.
 * You have edit warred, someone else would have come by and reverted Chelios if you'd left it, you don't have to do it all yourself.
 * Your edit summaries made it worse, the content may have been a pile of crap (it was). However, anything thats seen as abrasive counts against you.  Call a spade a spade or an earth moving implement but don't call it a "fucking shovel" OK.
 * So there you go, thats 3 things I would recommend but put it into your own words. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 16:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

(Stalking around) Also, try to take some pages off of your watchlist for a time. It really helps me to de-stress by walking away for a bit. Do not edit drunk. I sometimes do, and it has given me the next-day WP anxiety "what am I going to find in my notifications when I log in?" thing. Hope you lads are ok. The block is a bit harsh, imo. Cheers Irondome (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestions. I have applied them into the appeal request.
 * Thanks for the comment. Both you and Wee are right.
 * Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 16:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Posted this morning, good luck. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

. No, I don't know what you do for a living. I see a panda in your userpage.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * However, you're smart enough to have seen on my userpage that this is my alternate account... ES  &#38;L  17:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, no. I do not know anything about you. I could guess you're a zookeeper (based on the panda photo), but that would be the same as you guessing I work at a retirement home (due to my userpage image). Lastly, my comment about "black friends" and "racism" is an example, not a personal attack. Poor use of words? Yes, in retrospect. However, I never asserted you were, in fact, a racist.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 17:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So, now that you've been smart enough to follow the link from this userpage to that of my primary account, you now remember what I do for a living ... it's listed on the userboxes (and likely the categories as well). Indeed, you have known that for some time.  And yes, making any comment about race was pretty stupid overall.  I know what "colours" my various family members are, thank you very much  ES  &#38;L  18:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * . I'm a self-aware idiot, and your assertions that I am "smart", while kind, do not apply. I don't "remember" anything about you or know anything about you; that you think I do is disconcerting. Lastly, I apologize for the apparent discomfort my comment on race has brought upon your well-being. Please don't let me be the cause of anguish.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 18:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're Lynne Truss?-- MarshalN20 | T al k 18:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

. Now there is no "military history" between Argentina and Brazil ? lol. Everything has a historical background (even the banana article has a history...and a specific history section for "the Caribbean, Central and South America"), but that doesn't mean all articles in Wikipedia are history articles. Why is it so difficult for people to understand?-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

. I count 7 unblocks and 1 oppose (and various comments). Are comments to be counted as part of the decision? I'm really just interested in continuing my work at User:MarshalN20/Sandbox4. Best.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 00:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As you may know, discussions are not votes. The votes themselves are easy enough to guage the general atmosphere of a discussion, but consensus is weighed by the overall mood of the discussion and not by the individual bolded !votes.--v/r - TP 00:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * . Thank you for the explanation. May I add that the statement "but I see stronger arguments made by those supportive of the block who make a strong case that this is about Latin-American history", does not present a very neutral statement. I don't mean to state you are not genuinely neutral, but the quoted part is making an inadvertent interpretation favoring the opposing side. Best.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 02:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the quoted part is a reading of the discussion. Good day.--v/r - TP 02:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

. I guess that I just won't edit any Latin American topics. Even if I were to do the Son de los Diablos, the allegedly "convincing argument" you mention would also apply. The incongruence here is that, given my TBAN on Latin American history, how can I demonstrate I can productively contribute to Latin American topics? Do I have to keep asking for article exceptions just as I did with Falkland Islands? Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Unblocked I've unblocked this account per consensus at WP:AN. It is contentious whether this article is history related or not. A convincing argument has been made that it is and I would suggest that going forward, you be aware that these disputes will continue to happen when you edit similar articles.--v/r - TP 14:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in User:KumiokoCleanStart's opinion of 'broadly construed'. I can't tell you how the community will react if you edit Son de los Diablos.  All I can do is give you a bit of advice that you're under a sanction that means essentially in the greatest possible interpretation.  Picture the border of India and Pakistan.  On the Indian side is acceptable editing and the Pakistan side is bad editing (or vice versa, this isn't a comment on their politics).  You are basically editing in the disputed Kashmir region.  While in that territory, you accept the disputes that come along with it and you'll have to constantly make a case why you were not in violation of your topic ban.  However, if you get further from the border, you don't have to put up with the stress.  As long as you are in that region, though, your accepting the stress that comes along with it and your block log may suffer for it.  You may end up with a block while it works itself out at ANI, like this time, or you may end up under a block that sticks.  And, if this continues to happen, you might find yourself under an indefinite block if the community feels your skating the edges on purpose.  I can't tell you what is, will, or can happen, I have no idea how the community or some other administrator will react later and I do not have the authority to wave a magic wand and say "It's alright guys, he's allowed to edit here."  I can only close an WP:AN thread and summarize the results.  The results of this particular dispute are that it's not unreasonable to consider this article in a historic light.  That's my job here.--v/r - TP 14:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * . Thank you for the explanation. The Kashmir example makes a lot of sense. I had not thought about this that way, but I can see now that what I view as a non-violation does not necessarily apply to what others see. I appreciate the advice.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Its good you were unblocked, a bit of advice is to edit smarter and I'd hope you take my suggestion of a WP:MENTOR on board. Take 5 and don't respond immediately, not easy grant you but the edit summaries and the edit warring were damaging to you.  This is what I mean by edit smarter rather than emotively.  Regards.  Wee Curry Monster talk 18:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement block, 14 November 2013
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your topic ban, you have been blocked from editing for 2 months. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.  Sandstein  19:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

MarshalN20 Block Appeal
I keep trying to write my full appeal in the above template, but it does not seem to be working!

I am currently topic banned from topics related to Latin American history. Sandstein blocked me under the assumption that I broke my topic ban restrictions, specifically the "broadly construed" clause of the topic ban. I disagree and request my topic ban appeal be taken to a community discussion board due to the following reasons: parts of other pages that are related to the topic Therefore, given the points above, I kindly request the community to remove my account block. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 14:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I am topic banned from history of Latin America articles. I am not banned from Latin American culture  articles.
 * 2) My edit summary was not appropriate, and I should not have edit warred in the article in question (however, I did not break the WP:3RR). But this does not justify a 2-month AE block.
 * 3) The arbitration enforcement block is due to my participation in the article "Chile–Peru football rivalry" (see ), a sports article
 * 4) The Chile-Peru football rivalry is a current event.
 * 5) The history section of the Chile-Peru football rivalry section is clearly delimited. I have not edited it since the topic ban. WP:Banning policy allows me to edit articles unrelated to the topic ban but not on parts of pages that are:
 * 1) The non-history sections of the article are related to sports (statistics, facts, etc.).
 * 2) The first football match between Peru and Chile took place in 1935 (see ). This is well after the time of the War of the Pacific in the 19th century.
 * 3) As part of the unblock request, I would like to apply and obtain a WP:MENTOR. As a friend recommends, I need to learn how to edit smarter and stop becoming a target of others.

Discussion with Sandstein
, please, taking this to a public forum is only going to make your detractors bandwagon into the subject (and jumble this topic with other non-related matter). I have not broken the topic ban. The current block is taking matters much too broadly (inadvertently making the same "broad misconception" mistake I made when I participated in the War of the Pacific discussion).-- MarshalN20 | T al k 20:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Insofar as the appeal is addressed to me, I decline it for the reasons given at WP:AN3 linked to above. This unblock request will be reviewed by another administrator who will decide whether to submit the appeal to community review, if they do not decline it outright.  Sandstein   20:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, Sandstein. Only know that I am guilty of neither breaking the topic ban nor of whatever might happen in the community review. Also, I note that your action is only reinforcing the edit warring behavior of Chelios123 (see ). Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 20:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN
Marshal, as previously I will take this to WP:AN for a review as I believe this to be completely unwarranted and has escalated what was a minor content dispure that could have been resolved amicably without anyone being blocked. Clearly this is not warranted and I encourage you to review WP:Banning policy as grounds for your appeal. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 22:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm devastated by the situation. Too much insult and abuse. The chicanery of users such as Chelios is disgusting, and the unjustified actions of administrators is equally disappointing.
 * If I am too kind, then I get mocked for it. If I am even a tad unfriendly, then I get reprimanded for it.
 * Where did common sense go? How can a sports article become anything other than that?
 * This is absolutely unbelievable.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 23:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement
There is a discussion involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Cambalachero (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk?Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on User talk?Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. red dog six (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Red. There seems to have been a minor link mistake at User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog. Could you fix it? Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 16:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed: User_talk:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog. I assume reddogsix is a bot.  SilkTork  '✔Tea time  16:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you SilkTork.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 17:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

November 2013 GOCE drive wrap-up

 * Just accept there is no deadline, therefore no backlog, and things become far less worrisome.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 07:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion
This is a courtesy notice indicating that a motion has been proposed by an arbitrator in a request which you are a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 11:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Motion: Argentine History (MarshalN20)
You have made a statement in the clarification request relating to Argentine History. This message is to let you know that a motion amending the original decision has now been proposed. You are welcome to add comments on this motion underneath your original statement. Thanks, AGK  [•] 11:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the note, AGK.
 * Happy holidays.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 12:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Amendment to Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History
The Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ  21  Call me Hahc21 00:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Discuss this

Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup!
Hello MarshalN20, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! , and  17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent clarification
I don't think that the arbcom will help with that. The finding of fact already says "MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) has engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct", and cites diffs from the War of the Triple Alliance article. If someone wants to take the case as a wildcard to accuse you of things that the case itself does not say you had ever done, then you can simply openly deny that. You can also remind the users that say such things that the Arbcom works with disputes but does not rule over article content. Cambalachero (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Cambalachero. It's bothersome to continuously read third party accusations that tarnish our reputation and academic integrity. The "Fascist sources" accusation should have ended with the IBAN, but they persist (and it doesn't take much thought to figure out why, especially when finding the "common factor" of these mudslingers).
 * Yes, telling those third parties that Arbcom does not rule over article content is one way of addressing the matter, but it doesn't stop them from continuing the accusations.
 * I'd like to hear from the Arbitration Committee other suggestions on how to handle this matter. Maybe taking them directly to AN/I could be a solution, but it would also be helpful if the "casting aspersions" principle became enforceable through the Arbitration Enforcement board.
 * Regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 16:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for clarification (January 2014)
The [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=592220666#Clarification_request:_Argentine_History request for clarification] involving you has been declined as withdrawn. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 20:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice Rschen7754.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 00:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement
You have been mentioned at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement Cambalachero (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Cambalachero.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 00:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)