User talk:MarshalN20

Please leave a message. I'll reply here or in your talk page.

Note: A bot archives contents of this page. No recent posts means no messages will be displayed below. Older messages are still readable in the archives (above). New messages may be added here. If you post a message here, I will reply on your talk page.

Regarding the Falklands Islands

Hi. I've been following the editing and discussion, looks broadly ok to me so far. I think you should avoid using potentially loaded language (such as your use of the word "colonised"). I think it's also best if you bind yourself to a 1RR restriction and to the WP:BRD cycle. I don't want you to be edit warring on this article, not even once. It would be better to stay squeaky-clean. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Aye Aye Captain! [:)] --MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Repeating Laver's claim that the population has been gerry mandered in the Falkland Islands should be avoided. Its simply untrue and the information you added about demographics from it is largely incorrect. Its not homogenous as you claim, its ethnically diverse as noted in Origins of Falkland Islanders. The figures are there so why would you choose as a source a politically motivated tome and repeat claims motivated by political considerations as fact?

I have to say that I am hugely disappointed by your comments about the history section that I largely wrote. It was written in a neutral fashion, by a consensus that included yourself and to claim its misleading is quite simply untrue. Why would you say that? 192.35.35.40 (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC) (WCM)

I'm sad that you're disappointed from my comment, so I apologize for it. Perhaps I should not have stated "history-related" in my comment, because I agree that the "Sovereignty Dispute" section was a largely positive result. However, I remember that we often disagreed about the state of the history section. I called it "misleading" because there are a handful of important points that should be mentioned (such as the Arana–Southern Treaty) and the source quality (Falklands.info) is dubious. I also honestly did not know that you wrote the section, but all I am doing at this point is using the WP:SUMMARY style.

Then again, perhaps "misleading" is a strong word that I am not using in the correct context.

Also, thank you for the information on the Origins of Falkland Islanders. I don't find anything there that contradicts the claim that the Falklands are a "predominantly homogeneous society" (meaning that most of it is homogeneous, but not all of it). I even mentioned the 2006 census to show that there is some variety in the descent of the islanders. I honestly don't see how this is controversial.

I do, however, agree with you that the Laver claim of "government policies" affecting the population is worthy of a double-look. Could you please provide me with sources that contradict him? Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to be careful as I'm gagged at the moment but I don't believe that extends to offering advice to another editor on suitable sources.

[1] Lonely Planet, describes it quite well. It wasn't a Government policy but the case of the economy being dominated by absentee landlords, with the islanders themselves largely poorly paid labourers with little opportunity for improvement or advancement. The cause of the declining population was economic stagnation that indirectly stemmed from the sovereignty dispute. Proposals to diversify the economy into fishing etc were blocked the FCO who were wary of anything that might be seen to antagonise Argentina. Ian Strange, The Falkland Islands or Mary Cawkell's 2001 History of the Falkland Islands both explain this quite well. Laver is simply parroting Argentine claims that the population has been gerry mandered by the British Government.

I was trying to improve sourcing, Falklands.info wasn't a dubious source btw, it was accurate. Good luck on any mention of the Arana–Southern Treaty, the Argentine editors will bitterly oppose any mention of it - for reasons that are anachronistic to wikipedia but you will be expected to discuss it with them see WP:RANDY. 192.35.35.40 (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC) (WCM)

Wee Curry Monster, need I really remind you of this?: by community consensus, Gaba p and Wee Curry Monster are both indefinitely topic-banned (see WP:TBAN) from everything related to the Falkland Islands.. That happened merely three months ago and you are now without a doubt overstepping the limits of the topic ban. So please stop. Thank you.

PS: sorry for bringing that up here Marshall, I know it's not the right place but Wee and Kahastok don't want me commenting on their talk pages. Also, by discussing Falklands-related matter with you he is effectively making you a partner in his blatant topic ban violation. Regards and sorry again.Gaba ^(talk) 17:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

(quick note) I haven't read in detail both of your messages, but I feel it is important to hear both of you in order to develop a good history section. While both of you are indeed topic banned from editing Falklands-related topics here in Wikipedia, you are not banned from sending me e-mails with your thoughts on the development of the article. After all, the e-mail belongs to me (or to the company that hosts the service, which is not Wikipedia). So please communicate with me through that method, and I promise to listen. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Marshal, encouraging either of us to email you could well be construed as meat puppetry and I would never do that to you. Given your recent problems at Arbcom, which I consider a grave injustice, I would hate to see your topic ban extended. I admire that you still wish to contribute in these circumstances. Anyway, I have always done things openly and suggesting sources is not a violation of my topic ban and I see nothing wrong in a personal message to someone I regard as an old friend. If Gaba wishes to continue cyber stalking and bullying me then he can go right ahead and report me and see if I care. I am genuinely sorry that he has chosen to continue his personal vendetta on your talk page, I would never have commented here if I thought that he would. Un abrazo. 192.35.35.40 (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd really rather not report a "Retired" editor, so if you would just stop violating the topic ban that'd be great.

Thank you for your efforts Marshall, you must be a police mediator AFK :) In any case, bypassing the topic ban using you as a proxy could indeed be thought as meat puppetry so we should avoid that and instead honour the topic ban imposed like big boys. Also, I removed my email from my WP account months ago as to ensure that all my interactions are made out in the open so I couldn't do it anyway. Best regards and sorry again for the wiki drama in your talk page. Best. Gaba ^(talk) 11:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Gaba. I am planning to file an exemption to both of your topic bans where both of you would be able to discuss the development of the history section in one of my sandboxes.

This would include the two of you presenting sources (books, page numbers, etc.) that can help me create a good history section.

Ultimately, my hope is that the two of you collaborate.

However, even if that were not to happen, it would still allow both of you to demonstrate you are serious contributors to the Falkland Islands articles. I know that at least one of you does not want to admit to any wrongdoing, which I can understand given my similar situation, and you won't have to as long as I am the one requesting the end of your topic bans.

I'd like to know if both of you would be willing to give this option a try? Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Please see this. --Lecen (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you really have nothing better to do than chase me 'round the clock in Wikipedia? I get the sense that you hate me because I figured out your game here in the 'pedia. If that's the case, be aware that I have no other feeling but indifference towards you. I have no intention to serve as your conscience, and at this point no longer care what you do (or don't do) here. Please quit stalking me, please leave me alone.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see this. --Lecen (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather not see it (🙈).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Case amendment request notification

I have filed a request for amendment to the Argentine History arbitration case which would affect you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. Please visit this page to review and comment on the request. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Interaction ban

As there is a current discussion for an interaction ban, I would like to clarify you some details. First, remember that it is a two-way thing: the other user can't talk about you, but you can't talk about him either. Second, it is not limited to talking directly to the other user in his or your talk page, or a talk page of some other page: if either of you talk about the other somewhere else, that would be a violation of the ban as well. And of course, speaking in vague terms, as in "a user that I can not name", would be the same as if the user was mentioned directly. In short, you should forget about him, and act as if he does not exist.

Of course, the process itself is not included: if the other user violates the ban, you are not violating it if you report him. And if he reports you, you are not violating it if you defend yourself in the appropiate place. But no more than that. If you want to talk about the topic ban, it's a bit risky: you can't talk about the topic itself of the ban, because of the topic ban, nor about the interactions with the user that led to this ban, because of the interaction ban. Unless you are filling an amendenment request or something similar, just say there is a ban and give a link to the case, or try to simply avoid talking about it.

The details are at WP:IBAN.

Sorry if I told you something that you already knew, but when the topic ban was sanctioned you almost got in trouble for not understanding the extension of the concept, and I wouldn't want you to get blocked because of such mistakes. Cambalachero (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cambalachero. I read the WP:IBAN information, but your comment here did help make matters more clear. What surprises me is that the arbitrators are (apparently) ignoring the clarification request and other important subjects presented in the case, but I hope that this is incorrect.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Falklands/Malvinas History

Hi MarshallN20!

I see that you are working on the main FI article. Some statements in the history section that you have been editing today are highly dubious. That's just my opinion, for sure, but I'm pretty confident on this point. E.g., see this current discussion on one of these issues [2]. Are you trying to merely improve the article or do you intend to propose it for WP:FA? Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

@Andrés Djordjalian:, good God...I was not aware there was such a long discussion over this. Thank you for letting me know about it.

To answer your question, yes, my objective is to follow the process of nominations (GA, then FA) for the article.

I am currently done with most of the article, except the history-related sections. I need to improve references, reference formats, and double-check some information.

I am "done" with the first two paragraphs in the history section, and I am now working on paragraph 3. I also noticed that the dates and sourced information are very confused. Some authors state that Vernet's settlement was established in 1826, others in 1828, and others pick 1829.

User:Wee Curry Monster apparently is the one who worked on the original history section. I wish I could get his input on some questions I have about the information (I'm sure he also had a hard time with all of the jumbled information provided by sources), but he is currently topic banned.

Please do tell me what ends up happening with the RfC, or just enlighten me in general about what you think is right/wrong with the section. I am willing to listen to everyone's view on the subject.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The current mood of the outside comments seems to be that Andrés' theory does not adequately match the sources provided. But it's all got a bit long-winded (there are a lot of 5-6 kB messages) and tricky to follow. Kahastok talk 12:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Tricky is an understatement. lol. Very confusing read.

I view my handling of "the situation" in the footnote as an appropriate solution. I personally think that Vernet was using all his cards in the table so as to avoid losing the game. Using quotations citing Cawkell directly is a good way to add more action to the situation (rather than us telling it to the reader).

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Marshall. I doubt that articles on the English or Spanish WP about the history of the islands or the sovereignty dispute can reach scholarly standards. It is not the material's fault; there are many quality sources to be used and, though they disagree on some points, we could summarize each position. But it has been very difficult to bring even the simpler issues, that RfC being a sample. I hope you can make the time to read it carefully in order to evaluate my point. I don't think a random group of people who are frequently moved by emotion and heavily biased by language can tackle this work capably and neutrally. I will be happy to summarize some problems with the current text, but I didn't just mean unsupported assertions but also tendentiousness in the selection of what is said and how it is said.

It is a pity when chauvinism is aroused because of something silly read on WP, and I think featuring any of these articles would make things worse. I very much welcome your help, but I wouldn't feel comfortable encouraging it without mentioning that I carry so much doubt about the final product you are trying to obtain...

Regarding the start of Vernet's settlement, I have also seen sources disagree. I don't think it is among the serious issues, though I find these articles favoring the 1828 date while I think authoritative studies rather prefer 1826. I don't believe many choose 1829 unless they mean something more specific derived from Vernet's political entitlement that year. I believe that we can confidently say that he started a settlement in 1826 but gave it its big push from 1828 on with the arrival of many settlers. If there was an interruption between the two enterprises, I guess we will never know for sure. The British consul reported that Vernet had been in the islands from 1826 on and I remember reading somewhere that some of the post-1829 gauchos said that they had arrived in 1826. Anyway, it shouldn't be difficult to survey good sources and summarize their opinion. I can help with that. Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Andres. I understand your concerns. The best way to avoid interpretations is by presenting sources based on what they state (that is, academic sources), and attributing conflicting points of view to specific authors.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi MarshallN20. I've written some comments in a sub-page of my user page. I intend to go on completing it, though I will probably address no more than the history and sovereignty sections. I'd appreciate your thoughts and please let me know if you would like some specific sources or clarifications. Thanks! --Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I note that the summary is strongly biased. I note that it relies on interpretations that have been rejected by consensus at RFC, and raises several old chestnuts that have been repeatedly rejected as pro-Argentine (why don't we call what happened in 1833 an "invasion"? Because nothing resembling an "invasion" happened.) I find it ignores sources that are inconvenient to the Argentine POV - including Argentine sources that have been raised on talk in the past that say (for example) that there was effectively an eighth clause to the Arana-Southern treaty: "Inglaterra se quedaba con las Malvinas".

The whole text would be converted into the Argentine POV alone, rather than a neutral rendering of the sources.

I've been a bit busy this week, I'm afraid, but I intend to continue our discussions over the next few days. Kahastok talk 20:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of your changes to Falkland Islands

Thought I'd let you know, I have started a new section in attempt to bring detailed discussion of your changes. You said that you wanted people to check through them so that we can make improvements and I'm hoping to go through them bit-by-bit so that we can make sure that we're happy per consensus, and to make it easier to make whatever improvements are desirable (by allowing editors to see what changes were made more clearly). The hope is that we don't get bogged down too much in the colour of the bike sheds. I deliberately named you in the intro so that you would get a notification, but a talk page message is always useful.

I hope this is not a problem - it seemed to be what you were looking for. Kahastok talk 12:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I get notifications, other times I don't (and this was one of those cases). Thank you for taking the time to analyze the changes. WP:SUMMARY is, I think, the strongest policy that will help move discussion on detail (and even trivial matters) to more-appropriate articles. I even dare dream that getting the Falkland Islands article to GA or FA status will open a way for other related controversial articles to use it as a model.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee interaction ban

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) and Lecen (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Should one of these users violate this restriction, the user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, then to arbitration enforcement, and then to the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I should name you my bearer of good news. Thanks Callanecc!--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)