User talk:MarshalN20

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

This is MarshalN20's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22: 10 days

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.

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 [1]. 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Kahastok, you're now confusing the text of a treaty with a singular bullet point in an analysis done by one historian (who btw I did mention), once more not even bothering to read properly before obfuscating talk pages with inflammatory criticism. What I have written is based on plentiful authoritative work, the "invasion" thing being probably the most-subjective comment there, though you're distorting my argument, I doubt your counter-argument is terribly appealing and it was just a minor point among many important ones. If you feel that I have omitted relevant sources, please specify which (you can use the sub-page's talk page). What you now portray as a worthy consensus was rather an inconclusive discussion, and quite a sorry one if you ask me... I'm trying to take a holiday from this repeated hassle. I'm sorry if I'm using harsh words this time, but I've been standing this for months. --Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE Blitz wrap-up and September 2013 drive invitation

Guild of Copy Editors August Blitz wrap-up

Participation: Out of sixteen people who signed up for this blitz, nine copy-edited at least one article. Thanks to all who participated! Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we removed 26 articles from the requests queue. Hope to see you at the September drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest and Torchiest, Baffle gab1978 and Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and Jonesey95, and The Utahraptor and The Utahraptor.

Sign up for the September drive!
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon River

No. Because the majority of geographers say that the Nile River is the longest river in the world, and the Amazon River is the second longest river in the world. Only a few geographers say that the Amazon is longer than the Nile.

71.72.24.51 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Random?

Unless you provide reliable data that states what "the majority of geographers say", your opinion is nothing more than that.

What the sources demonstrate is the existence of a disagreement among scientists as to which river is the longest.

Therefore, nothing justifies an imposition on the Amazon River article claiming it as the "second longest river in the world".

The correct, per WP:NPOV, manner to address the issue is to present it as "either the longest or second longest river in the world".

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Falklands Islands

As a condition of you continuing to edit the Falklands Island article, you are to cease using User talk:Andrés Djordjalian/Review of "Falkland Islands" as a venue for discussion. If you feel you need to discuss the article, use the talk page. There is no need for you to conduct lengthy "reviews" in user space subpages. You have to be smarter than this - it would be very easy for a third party to portray Andres as biased and thus very easy to accuse you of collusion. You're in a vulnerable position and you need to make yourself beyond reproach. I am currently conducting a review of your edits to the article, but I think a comment by Kahastok on my talk page is pertinent - the changes you're making to the article are going to have to be discussed, and if they prove contentious in the long run and no consensus can be reached, the article will have to be reverted to the condition prior to when you began your re-write. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Basalisk:, I'm unpleasantly surprised. To begin with, why are you lightly making that disturbing comment on my capacity? I surely am a subjective individual but I believe to be using good sources and fair reasoning. Actually, considering the sources I have mentioned so far in the review, it could even be argued that I'm biased towards Britain, as there's only one Argentine author among them (published by a prime US law college) whereas British historians are three, including one condecorated by HMG and another one endorsed by it, plus there's a US scholar published by Oxford U. and some British primary sources. That's just a pointer on how ridiculous Kahastok's accusation is. (Needless to say, judging authors by their nationality is simplistic to the point of being silly, but apparently it is not easy to attain depth here.)

Secondly, what's so wrong about working on a user page for the sake of organizing a debate? The discussion is open for everyone to read and participate—I have even invited Kahastok to do so—and no-one is planning to claim a consensus from it.

You are warning MarshalN20 for openly discussing content and requesting sources outside of the article talk page. Which WP policy forbids that? What would actually improve the articles is to avoid disruptive empty accusations and ad-hominem attacks. Please look into the content more closely before making strong remarks. The fact that I'm arguing for a less "pro-British" version of these WP articles doesn't mean that I am biased. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I should make it clear that I am not making any comment on your capacity. I am stating that it would be easy for someone else to question your neutrality, hypothetically. Your edits in the area show a fairly significant preponderance towards a particular point of view (as evidenced right here by your use of terms such as "less 'Pro British'"). That's not a terrible crime in itself, but considering the circumstances Marshal should avoid conducting discussion on a controversial topic in a pseudo-secret location in the user space of an editor who has displayed a degree of non-neutrality. It's just too easy for a third party to claim it's not above board (as two editors indeed have).

The nationality of the authors of sources you are using has no impact on the neutrality of the content they publish, so I don't know why you're concerned about that.

I am happy to explain my reasoning behind this if you have further questions but I'm not going to entertain discussions about Marshal continuing to work on your user sub page and the article at the same time. If he has things to discuss he can do it on the article talk page where it's easy for everyone to see and participate in. That's not an unreasonable requirement, it costs him nothing. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Basalisk. Thank you for the notification. I apologize for not responding more quickly, although (I assume) it was probably good to give everyone a chance to express themselves (here and in your talk page).

Andres probably does not know, but I am currently under the supervision of Basalisk. This means that he has been entrusted by the Arbitration Committee to make sure my edits are done in accordance to WP policy. Moreover, as an administrator, Basalisk has been entrusted by the WP community to uphold WP policy. And, from personal experience, I know that Basalisk's advice is trustworthy.
Basalisk, reading your talk page (and mine), all I can comment about myself is that every single one of my edits has been done with utmost care to not only uphold WP's policy of verifiability, but also to duly refrain from hurting anyone's feelings (or pride) in the subject. My sole attempt has been to foster an academic respect among the editors, a task perhaps difficult (but not impossible) to achieve.
My contributions on Andres' talk page were aimed at promoting that respect. At no point did I attempt to secretly collude with Andres. In fact, I edited on Andres' user page (see [2]) only after Kahastok let me know that he was also aware of it (see [3]). Furthermore, I only included information which Andres was kind enough to fully present to me (text, pagination, book, author, etc.). Not only that, but Kahastok's excellent review on the Talk:Falkland Islands page was eventually going to go into greater analysis of the history section once it reached completion (which is also why I assumed Kahastok did not comment on Andres' page). However, if I understood things incorrectly, then I apologize for it.
Ultimately, all of the editors involved are good people (Wee, Kahastok, Gaba, Andres). I know their positions, understand their views, and (most importantly) respect their opinions. The essence of successful academic discussions is respect.
I also know that I am walking over a thin thread in this article, which is my only opportunity to demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that all that was said about me in the Argentine History case was a complete distortion of the truth.
But everyone knew that getting the Falkland Islands to GA/FA status was never going to be an easy task. Patience is key. We are closer to achieving this goal than we have ever been since the article was created. [:)] --MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MarshalN20. I understand your situation and did know about your supervision. @Basalisk:, if you are excluding yourself from that possible opinion about my objectivity, I appreciate it, but I read an implicit criticism in your remark about being it very easy to portray me as biased and to accuse MarshalN20 of collusion, which concurs with your reply when you say that I display a degree of non-neutrality. I don't see grounds for such a statement and it is hurtful.

You supposedly exemplify it with my usage of the term 'less "pro-British"', but how does that exhibit a bias? I am trying to say that many of my remarks lead to a 'less "pro-British"' version but that it does not necessarily mean that I'm biased, because there's the possibility that many issues in the current verbatim were entered and defended by biased editors and I'm simply trying to have them cleaned up. If you want to see non-anti-"pro-British" comments of mine, you can start with the last thing I wrote before this exchange, where I disagreed with MarshalN20's statement about HMG apparently simulating not knowing about the French colony (I wrote it yesterday, before your comment here).

I have no idea why you're saying that I'm concerned with nationality when I said that it was simply something that "could be argued" (by others) and cared to write a parenthesis clarifying that I don't share that view, which I qualified as shallow and silly. By the way, I take it that you are not suggesting that those authors are "pro-Argentine".

If you're not "going to entertain discussions" about your recommendations to MarshalN20 and he needs to make his best effort to comply, we will probably need to continue on the article talk page, though I will still maintain that sub-page. However, I would appreciate knowing which policy was being broken. Why do you qualify the review's talk page as a "pseudo-secret" one? No-one pretended it to be secret. Are you using the right term? If he wrote on my user talk page requesting a source, would it also be a reprehensible "pseudo-secret" conversation?

It wouldn't sound terribly 21st-century to me to state that, although that interaction was helpful to the articles, MarshalN20 should avoid it because unfair editors could question him for it alleging that I'm biased even if I'm not. Such prejudices deserve a negative response, not a positive one as you're providing here. Particularly when they come from an editor who, not surprisingly, was banned from this subject. -- Andrés Djordjalian (talk) 03:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

seleccion peruana

1 Hola, de donde saca usted que el rodillo negro fue la base de la seleccion en los juegos olimpicos de berlin. Es sabido por todo el Peru que la base de los olimpicos de Berlin fue el club SPORT BOYS mas los refuerzos de universitario y aliansa lima. http://www.larepublica.pe/10-05-2013/lolo-fernandez-junto-la-seleccion-conquisto-las-olimpiadas-de-berlin-1936 El equipo partió en el barco 'Orazio' un 13 de junio, arribando a la capital alemana casi un mes después. La delegación era encabezada por el entrenador "Tito" Denegri, y el equipo conformado, en su mayoría, por jugadores de Sport Boys.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_Boys_Association#1936:_Las_Olimpiadas_de_Berl.C3.ADn En este año, no se disputó el campeonato de fútbol nacional por dar prioridad a la preparación de la selección para las Olimpiadas de Berlín '36. Sin embargo la racha del cuadro porteño no fue cortada pues aquí, en ese lapso, el Sport Boys escribió otra página de gloria. El periodismo clamó por un choque contra la preselección que se alistaba a intervenir en los Olimpiada de Berlín y la FPF cedió ante la presión. Ahí estaban los mejores de Alianza, 'U' y el Círcolo, sin embargo el Boys les ganó 3-1 y luego de pasar por una serie de pruebas de suficiencia, a pedido y clamor de la crítica y la afición, la FPF decidió incorporar a los once titulares rosados al equipo olímpico.

2 El apodo, nickname de la seleccion de Peru es tambien La Rojiblanca como dice la fuente nickname, see http://elcomercio.pe/deportes/612638/noticia-que-claudio-pizarro-deberia-no-referente-seleccion-markarian

http://elbocon.pe/nota.php?/calientitas/vamos-peru-la-rojiblanca-llego-a-montevideo/&sid=87&id=697864 ¡Vamos Perú! La "rojiblanca" llegó a Montevideo

http://trome.pe/deportes/1465580/noticia-rojiblanca-entreno-estadio-alberto-gallardo La rojiblanca entrenó en el estadio Alberto Gallardo

3 ¿La primera era de oro? otra falsedad, no hubo tal primer era de oro, mas alla que la prensa de ahora quiere vender ese cuento. En todo caso no e visto que alguien los llame de esa manera ¿artista del balon? es un juicio de valor, en todo caso el mas grande es solo Hugo Sotil. Perico Leon no es conocido como tal.

¿Donde esta el Vandalismo que usted me acusó?

gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.48.41 (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Querido compatriota,

Lo que es "sabido por todo el Peru" por lo general es erroneo a causa de informacion malinterpretada o medias verdades.

El equipo olimpico de Berlin desde un principio fue el "Rodillo Negro" que jugo en Chile. Los 11 del Boys fueron agregados despues de haber vencido al Rodillo. Sin embargo, pese a que la mayoria de los jugadores Olimpicos en el equipo eran del Boys, la mayoria de ellos no jugo partido alguno en las Olimpiadas de Berlin (fueron, injustamente, colocados como reserva de los titulares). Los que jugaron en Berlin como titulares fueron, en su mayoria, los jugadores del Rodillo Negro.
El apodo de "rojiblanca" no es comun.
Le recomiendo leer la historia del futbol peruano en la epoca mencionada. Ciclista, Alianza, Boys, Chalaco, Union Cricket, etc.
Se usa como referencia lo escrito por la CONMEBOL. Perico Leon es un artista del balon.

Saludos.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Botany featured

Can you see the last couple post here: User_talk:Plantsurfer#Ref_Problem. A lot of people helped get it here. How to proceed? Can you have more than one nominatore, how many? 512bits (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]