User talk:Durero

Hello, Durero! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Tony the Marine ^{(Tony the Marine: Talk|UB|Home)}

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Puerto Rico Campaign

Hola Durero,

I have noticed that you have continued to make changes in the infobox of this article. I strongly suggest that you do not enter into an edit-war and that you discuss the subject and your position with the others on the article's "talk" page. This way things can be sorted out. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rican Campaign

Durero, after studying the situation from every point of view, I have come to a conclusion in regard to the infox discussion which I believe may be a just one. Please check it out and express if you agree. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo tambien lo siento Durero, de veras y por eso te pido disculpas. Sinceramente entendi tu posicion y por esa razon mi intenciones era la de participar como "mediator". Pensaba en buscarle un a solucion a la situacion, sin mucho problemas pero mi vi frustrado a ver la falta de participacion de las otras partes envueltas y que tambien la discussion se haya desviado a temas un poco lejos del tema principar. Durero, quiero que sepas que me alegro que estes de acuerdo con la notacion en el infobox y que sepas que no tengo nada en tu contra. Yo estare aqui siempre a tus ordenes si me necesitas para lo que sea. Me he expresado sobre lo mismo aqui y aqui. Gracias por tu participacion. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico flag

I think is interesting that you said that "me ha cortado (y echado) de mala manera." At least you had an opportunity for discussion. I can't say the same thing with the Bandera de PR article in Es.Wikipedia. Instead of a discussion, you sent me directly to 3R where you said that consensus was not possible. Well, I have news for you, the tone of the flag did change in the es.Wikipedia, 1 because of overwhelming consensus here. Anyway, thanks for your interest in the flags of Puerto Rico. I look forward working with you in the future. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Segun la referencia que tu utilizarte para defender tu caso (1), dice que la bandera es azul claro, 2. Asi que no sigas jodiendo, claramente tus intenciones con la bandera de Puerto Rico no son genuinas. Sigue jugando al todopoderoso en la Wiki en Español y dejame tranquilo. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I strongly suggest to all of the parties involved to put an end to the fighting and to stop accusations and interacting in heated disputes with each others. In the event that this does not seem possible then ask for the intervention of a mediator (Not me because I am burned out from three previous mediations and I need a rest). Thank You. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Innecesario

Durero, I only suggested a mediator and you are right, "está claro es que yo no serviría." thank you for bringing it up. Now, if you people started a conflict in Spanish Wikipedia, don't bring them here. If you people start your arguments here then it will be handled by the community here. Personaly am not interested nor do I care what went on with you all in Spanish Wikipedia that is your problem. Over here we discuss things first and for your information in Puerto Rico the word "Joder" is also used within the meaning of "messing around". I am not interested in hearing anymore on the subject, so Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Hi Durero. As I have said before I apologize for any momentary lack of judgment. The truth is that we clearly have different point of views and both of us have used inappropriate tone, but that should not be an excused for my action. I'm available for mediation in the truth spirit of Wikipedia (WP:Mediation). I also understand if you don't want to be part of the English Wikipedia process of mediation. My only request is that you follow policy and post your messages in English in this Wiki as required by Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice. I was accused of using Spanish to game the system and now I understand the importance for the whole community in the English Wikipedia to follow and review our conversations (not only the Spanish speaking administrators). We don't want any misunderstanding. Even in the best translation the message can misrepresented. I hope we can put this matter to rest and move on. I know you want to go back to editing as much as me. Gracias (Thanks), --J.Mundo (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Razon

Estoy de acuerdo en tu ultimo comentario en mi pajina, esa es la razon por la cual yo he sujerido de ahora en adelante no se usen palabras que se puedan intrepretar como ofensivas.

I agree with you in your last comment in my talk page, that is why I have suggested that from now on words which may be interpreted as offensive not be used. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the Battle of Callao

Greetings, i'll see your modifications to the Battle of Callao article, and yes, both sides claimed victory, but that's irrelevant, the facts are thane the Spanish fleet was unable to achieve its objetives, which was the destruction of the Callao defence forts, therefore, the Peruvian forces obtain a decisive and strategical victory. About the 3 heavely damage frigate, that's absolutely true, the Villa de Madrid was hit and lost its boilers, the Berenguela was pierced side-by-side and the Almansa received a hit in one of tis powder rooms which ignites causing several deaths... Without mentioning all the impacts in the Numancia, which lost an entire broadside in the battle... But you say: "Its absolutely FALSE"... I'm ot a lyer, and I'm very responsable about every single word than I put on Wikipedia, free of any nationalism and fanatism. I'm going to revert your correctios. --Cloudaoc (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

El Callao

Hola, Durero. No soy un gran experto en el tema de la Guerra de las Chinchas, pero algo conocía sobre el combate del Callao, y me soprendió muy ingratamente descubrir que en la wikipedia en inglés se le daba semejante enfoque partidista. Como tú dices el artículo es bastante vergonzoso y carece de neutralidad. Sólo he retocado la sección del "aftermath" y el infobox, aunque como bien has dicho, siguiendo el ejemplo de multitud de artículos de batallas, lo de "3 damaged frigates" podría eliminarse (siguiendo el mismo caso de Trafalgar que has puesto, en el infobox de dicha batalla no aparece como pérdida inglesa el "heavily damaged" Belleisle, que acabó destrozado). Haría falta poner la versión del combate que dio Méndez Núñez y que los observadores franceses apoyaron, de la que no se nombra ni el más mínimo detalle. Mi inglés no es sobresaliente, y me lleva cierto tiempo crear un artículo de estas proporciones, así que si me ayudases un poco te lo agradecería. En la intro y el background hacen falta unos pocos cambios y neutralizar un poco el texto; luego es en la batalla donde hay que trabajar más a fondo. Un saludo. --ElBufon (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REV

Saludos, Durero. Ya he visto que repusiste mis ediciones, afirmando que estaban referenciadas, y que Kordas las volvió a quitar. Supongo que pronto volverás a colocarlas, pues a fin de cuentas lo que hiciste es exactamente lo mismo que hizo Maragm con el artículo Antón de Luna, revisarlo y dejarlo igual, ¿no crees? Además, el argumento de Kordas de que si me das la razón con esto volveré no se sostiene (Se borran porque entonces un bloqueo no serviría para nada. Si vamos a impedir editar a una cuenta, es absurdo permitir que se creen doscientas para evadir el bloqueo. Se bloquea a la persona, no a la cuenta), solamente hay que ver las contribuciones del 95% de mis títeres para saber que vuelvo, precisamente, para recuperar aquello que se está borrando a pesar de estar referenciado.

Espero que harás lo correcto, aunque sea cumpliendo el trámite de Maragm (cambiar alguna palabra, poner una referencia nueva avalando la misma frase, etc.) porque el ocultamiento de una información con el argumento de que "todas las ediciones posteriores a un bloqueo son ilegítimas, porque si no, un bloqueo a perpetuidad no sirve para nada" no tiene sentido. Y no tiene sentido porque si la edición no tiene legitimidad aunque tú, un bibliotecario con años de experiencia, la valides, ¿cuando la tendrá? ¿Significa eso que nadie podrá nunca publicar esos datos porque estos proceden de una "edición ilegítima" (con ese criterio habría que borrar en el acto el artículo de Antón de Luna -pues lo he creado yo- y también revertir el de Margarita de Prades -pues las posteriores ediciones de Maragm no hicieron sino decir lo mismo que yo en lo referente a su fecha de nacimiento y muerte y a su vida desde la muerte del rey-?

En fin, ya sabes qué artículos están en la lista. Te dejo tres más, que se escaparon. Isabel I de Castilla (las referencias están en la página de discusión, aunque fueron borradas creo que por Kordas, sólo tienes que echar un vistazo y verás que en el libro se acredita que el escudo cuartelado de castillos y leones es el territorial de la C. de Castilla). Martín I de Sicilia. Y Ramiro II de Aragón.--Baitrous (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish source

To tell you the truth, I don't speak Spanish, and I couldn't understand a word from that text, second, English sources that were present mentioned only "legitimate representative", not sole l. r. --Wüstenfuchs 13:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]