User talk:Cambalachero

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5
• Archive 6

Blood tables

FYI, if you have the time. NW (Talk) 03:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Done, I had confused the terms "libel" and "libelle" (a pamphlet written against a public figure). By the way, if someone tries to tell you that such a text was a reliable, impartial and trustworthy report, read the subtitle again: "It is a holy action to kill Rosas". Do reliable sources get names like that? I don't think so. Cambalachero (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Argentine History: Proposed decision posted

Hello Cambalachero. 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, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Pisco Sour & Arbcomm comments

Dear Cambalachero,
The uncomfortable situation with ArbComm aside, I was wondering if you could please vote either "oppose" or "support" at the Pisco Sour FAC. I know this sounds a tad blunt, but User:Ian Rose asked me to send you a comment about it.
Regarding the ArbComm case, we have done so much to contribute to a variety of topics in Wikipedia that some of the ArbComm votes are quite surprising to me (particularly Tim's and Roger's). The other party has only focused on over-glorifying the Brazilian monarchy, and yet that somehow makes him an expert on Latin American history (despite that is the characteristic of a WP:SPA).
Alas, all humans make mistakes. I hope that those who in this time prefer to vindicate the windmill opposite to Don Quixote will eventually see their error and correct it for the benefit of the encyclopedia.
Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Roberto Carnaghi

Hello! Your submission of Roberto Carnaghi at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History closed

An arbitration case regarding the article Juan Manuel de Rosas has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Cambalachero is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces.
2. MarshalN20 is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces.
3. Lecen is reminded to conduct himself in accordance with Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Cambalachero

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Hello

Dear Cambalachero,
Thank you very much for the advice.
Yes, the aforementioned little incident seems to be a good indication that the lad wants to see us blocked indefinitely. Best to avoid him. However, the problems he had with us are not the first time he is involved in this kind of situation (as mentioned by Sandy at NW's talk page). How many more warnings does a troll need before it is stopped?
I regret my actions at War of the Triple Alliance, which I still openly admit were guilty of exhibiting a pushy behavior (nothing more). But, you were there, and know that the move request was filled with Brazilian/Portuguese editors (most, if not all, "friends" of the other editor). Anyhow, I don't think that I deserved anything more than a warning, especially since I did not do that again for over a year.
I also don't think that we deserved the ugly name of "civil POV-pushers" from AGK (who even had originally recused himself from the case due to his involvement), which now is being used to mock my writing style. In any case, my writing style is really not that great, and I don't see anything wrong with being friendly and respectful toward others.
What bothers me the most is that you also received the punishment for no other reason than having a different point of view from the other editor. It's completely ludicrous!
Moving on, I know that we have never actually interacted closely (aside from having similar perspectives on two articles; although apparently that means we are "friends" in the view of some), but I would enjoy working with you on an article. NuclearWarfare recommended me to focus on a controversial topic (specifically more controversial than "Pisco Sour", which I thought was pretty controversial) to demonstrate I am not a POV-pusher. Falkland Islands might be a good start, but I was also giving some thought to Peru v Austria (1936). I think our interests tend to be different, but if you find any common ground topic which you think I can be of help, please do notify me and I will provide editorial help.
Cordially.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice Cambalachero. I have now read Wikipedia:Banning policy, and have a better idea of what not to do. I think the other side is trying to bait me into further discussing the topic, but I will not fall for it this time.

Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)