User talk:MarshalN20/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Disambiguation link notification for June 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Falkland Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stanley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Falkland Islands

Heya, I just wanted to drop a note about the FAC. I hope you don't take any of my comments personally - I'm not digging at you, but I'm aware that my comments can sometimes appear testy (that's the problem with communicating in text). I think the article has clearly come along way, judging from the talk page archives, and is a credit to all involved. I do think all of my suggestions have merit though (otherwise I wouldn't be making them!). Cheers, Ranger Steve ^Talk 10:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Steve. I was about to write a similar message to your talk page. I'm looking into all the comments and going to the local library in-between work breaks to read up on the sources. I am working on an ag economics project IRL, which is making this also a tad more complicated than I initially had in mind. I apologize if my comments seem blunt at times (How I wish my brain did not get tired!). Best wishes.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 10:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

See you've been busy, I've added back some material on the wrecking trade and ship repair trade as historically it was an important economic activity. Hopefully it enhances what you've already wrote. WCM_email 09:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

GOCE July 2014 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 newsletter is now ready for review. Highlights: Sign up for the July 2014 Backlog elimination drive Review the Coordinators election results – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Stone Corral

Do you remember that picture you added? See Sapper Hill, I think that may well be the same feature. WCM_email 18:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

That's really neat. They both look very similar. [:)]

I'd like to visit the Falklands someday.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 20:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Rollback

Granted. Let me know if you have any questions. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Julian. Very kind of you.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 02:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Advice for a national football team page

Dear Marshal, first of all congratulations with the Pisco Sour and Peru national football team articles, they make a fantastic duo on national symbols! (A pity it is not yet the case for Machu Picchu and the Peruvian flag, but oh well.) Since a while I have been busy at Belgium national football team, I got it upgraded to B-level by February this year but kept working on it. Because of Peru's NFT article, I consider you an expert in the field. Do you know the easiest way I could get (free) access to Henshaw's World Encyclopedia of Soccer? At the Belgium NFT page, I will still slightly extend the Stadium part and mention which sources were consulted through Google Books. Apart from that, I'm +/- stuck; do you have any other advice? (Also see the talk page of the article.) Thanks in advance, Kareldorado (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC) (P.S.: También hablo castellano.)

Dear Kareldorado, thank you very much for the message. Very good work and quantity of information. The only part I find confusing is the "team image" section; only "Actions and public relations" and "In books and popular culture" seem to be appropriate for the section (all the other ones should be independent of it).

Henshaw's work is excellent up to 1980. Mike LaBlanc updated it in 1994, but I did not find it in my library at the time I was working on the Peru national football team article (Amazon.com is selling a used copy for an American cent!); however, since I have not yet taken a look at LaBlanc's edition, I would not recommend it at this time. Henshaw's original sells for a lot more (it's a great book, so I can see why).

I am traveling right now and won't be back home until after mid August. If you are willing to wait a little, I can scan the pages and send you a copy of it. However, please remind me of it (I tend to forget things). Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Great! I agree about the "Team image" chapter, most sections are not really about "the image created by or built up around the team". Someone put it altogether, like in the Croatia NFT page. Thanks for proposing to send me these book extracts one day - I will make sure to remind you by the end of July then. Buen viaje and regards, Kareldorado (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration decision notice

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Notwithstanding the sanction imposed on MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) in Argentine History, he may edit United States, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn at any time by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

The closed amendment request may be reviewed on the case talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Great news. Thanks Callanecc!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Cheers! GiantSnowman 08:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sovereignty Dispute image (Falklands)

Hello! I created the map on the right you see here. The sources are in this article in Spanish Wikipedia. I have seen that South Sudan and other details missing. If you want to find more sources and correct what is missing, you can :) Regards. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm about to go into a meeting, so I'll check this out once I am done. Thanks!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 14:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

FWIW the image in question was discussed and rejected at the talk page here. Kahastok talk 21:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Kahastok. I was planning to look at other images that Cambalachero had suggested (the FAC reviewers don't seem to like a couple currently in the article, so I plan to shift the pictures a tad). Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 21:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Flickr might be of some use if you want new images not yet on Wikimedia. I believe the following are freely licensed:

Goose Green, welcome sign, a skua, Stanley Cathedral. Stanley waterfront.

If you want more of a look, you can do an advanced search of Flickr and select the Commons links at the bottom (you need both the boxes). Wikimedia Commons has a page on Flickr uploads here - though my search also showed up a lot of pictures of Falkland, Fife and of veterans parades and the like. Kahastok talk 22:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree, that image is an appalling example of WP:OR and nothing but a propaganda piece, it has no place in any Wikipedia article. Just got back, what did I miss? WCM_email 22:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the pictures Kahastok. I'll take a look in a just a second.

@Wee Curry Monster: Great to see you back. The article is one step away from getting nominated to FA status. The only oppose is from Nergaal; it seems neither of us can agree on the points raised. If you have some time, maybe read over what happened and provide your input (maybe I am the one being stubborn?). Also, a couple of images seem to have problems (I like the penguin one, so I am a little disappointed on that one).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 22:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Done so. I find you're correct on most points. I feel you fell into a trap of responding to the comments rather than explaining what the content was. Its clearly GDP, treated in a standard manner comparable with other FA and sourced to a recognised reliable source. That should be our response. He is also asking for WP:OR in a comparison with the UK; sources may do so but not wikipedia editors and I'm not aware of one. On his penultimate point, he is correct, I can see where the comment came from but we need a source to make the conclusion (though I have to comment my resulting edit makes the article less interesting). I've supplied two sources that explains the final point. Do you want to have a look at the source I added, on reflection perhaps I should have named the chapter author and used the "Cited In" format of referencing - let me know what you think. WCM_email 00:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. Everything is good now in the article. Thank you for the comments at the FAC page. I'm inclined to still view the Falklands as a non-sovereign state and country (the term "non-sovereign state" would not exist if there were not cases like the Falklands); nonetheless, I will not push for it if you agree with Nergaal. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

On that point I actually agree with you but its a red herring in relation to the points raised eg the CIA World Factbook ranking of GDP. He is wrong and you are right but by responding to the points he makes in error it gets confusing. Just stick to to what the facts say. WCM_email 01:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

And Promoted! WCM_email 14:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

WBFAN edits

Hi, This edit [1] will get overwritten the next time the bot runs. To change the nomination attribution for an FA you have to edit the relevant by-year summary list - in this case WP:FA2010. Looking at the FA log, it looks like you're correct (I don't have any idea how this might have happened, but it's been there since the original bot edit of the FA2010 file). Very strange. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Rick Block: Thanks for the note! I think the bot is mistaking this wikilink (User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism) as an additional user. The Wikilink is or was a part of Cam's signature. This is all a little too complicated for me, but I can give it a shot at a fix. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 01:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup - this edit will do the trick! -- Rick Block (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Trouting

Hi,
Pretty dumb trouting me for a comment I reverted seconds later?,
BTW I apologize for that but it would've been nice if you left a message stating your unhappiness with it instead of the trouting!,
Have a nice day.
–Davey2010 • (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw it, and that trout is well-deserved. Treat others as you would like to be treated, pal. Have a nice day.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 22:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That makes no sense?, I treated you with respect by reverting myself, I could've simply left it which would've been disrespectful and obviously would've solved nothing?,

The trout wasn't deserved whatsoever but as they say "Shit happens, Life moves on",

Anyway have a nice day & Happy editing, –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Then there's this edit ("Fuck off you idiot"). Anyhow, I really don't care. Just make sure to keep your trousers clean when playing with the tougher crowd. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 22:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said if you left an actual message without calling me a dick with the fishy then I would've been ALOT nicer, Trouting me over something I later reverted seemed a tad extreme, If I were playing with the tougher crowd I would've left it wouldn't I?

Anyway agree to disagree I think :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I called you a jerk, not a dick. The meta page needs a change in its name, but the tougher crowd doesn't want it changed. They're not a nice bunch, and the usual result is a strange mixture between humiliation and punitive treatment. Anyhow, feel free to do as you please. Cheers.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 23:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah sorry misread, I only left that message as it seemed you were being somewhat arsey with another editor but I kinda figured it's best I revert and shut up!, I'll admit I can be somewhat uncivil at times but I never look to humiliate anyone not ever,

Anyway I do apologize again for the stupid comment,

Anyway have a nice day,

Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll add that the other editor was complaining to me about a section title which I did not write (the article's authors are mentioned right at the top of the talk page); all I did was simply point him to WP:BRD. Thanks for the apology. Have a good day as well.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 02:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Response

Hi MarshalN20, I read your message in the talk section. You're probably talking about the references I deleted in some sections. The reason I deleted them is because as soon as I posted them, they didn't lead to any link, source or any fountain of information and in some in regards to bibliography, I tried to see if they worked in the bibliography section but the same problem persisted.(N0n3up (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC))

@N0n3up: The reference for Noble David Cook, Demographic collapse: Indian Peru, 1520–1620, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981, is clearly cited. The reference format certainly needs an update, but it's not a reason to delete it. Please read the image guidelines, as these are specific to prevent excessive amounts being placed in the article. Please keep discussion of the article in its talk page. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk

Reference Errors on 29 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Peru page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

自相矛盾

If you said that you are very serious, you shouldn't put the text "If you don't sign your posts, Sinebot will eat you" because that is just a exaggeration. Even if you want to scare people, then you shouldn't say you are very serious because robots don't eat people. And I won't sign this post and survive to prove to you that sinebot can't eat people. All that will happen is having sinebot leave this note: — Preceding unsigned comment added by User (talk • contribs) 00:00, 00 January 0000 (UTC) . And if you see me update my User page, THATS EVIDENCE that I'M NOT DEAD(or eaten by Sinebot or whatever).

@Gerry.y.ma: You're standing in thin ice here, pal. Legend has it that you must say "sinebot" three times in a mirror before it comes out and eats you.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 13:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Falklands

Hello. I have forgot to praise your job with the article on the Falkland Islands. I had noticed the nomination and the discussions, but I tried to stay away from it as much as possible. My comments would likely be suspected of bias because of my nationality, and there isn't much I could help with anyway, as I never had any special interest in the islands and so I never bought any related books. Being edited by a user from a third and unrelated country was the best thing that could have happened to that article. Cambalachero (talk) 15:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Cambalachero. I consider it all to have been a group effort. All of the prior difficult discussions were part of the process, but I'm glad that all of that was resolved and the story had a happy ending.

Despite all the unfounded accusations that we are in cahoots with each other, we have yet to truly work together in an article. I look forward to that time.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 22:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:3O

Hey there Marshall, I see you've answered two Third opinion posts, welcome! I hope you continue to volunteer here. I assume you've read the entire main page (WP:3O) and WP:Third opinion/User FAQ. When giving 3Os you can use {{subst:3OR|your reply}} (see Template:3OR) when answering; it's a good practice to edit the main page before responding so that we know it's taken and mentioning how many remain on the list (like this). Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm answering 3O's on a part-time basis.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 05:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Henshaw book fragments

Hi, I wanted to remind you to see if you could retrieve any information regarding the Belgian NFT in Henshaw's Encyclopaedia, before you travel back. Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I need to travel back prior to getting the information. Henshaw is in my personal library. Sorry for the misunderstanding! I'll be back in a weeks' time, so it will be soon. [:)] --MarshalN20 ^Talk 11:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, no problem! Kareldorado (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

My travel has been extended for another couple of weeks. Sorry for the delay!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 13:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Not edit warring

I am merely upholding WP:NOTCENSORED against an IP who thinks this site should revolve around him. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

@The Almightey Drill: The bottom line is that if I file a 3RR report, you will end up getting blocked. This is unjust, but those are the rules. I have provided a final warning to both you and IP. Please do not break it, as this is the only way I can help prevent any blocks to your account. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 20:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

IP has broken rules already. I went to WP:PP much earlier, the sooner they lock the better '''tAD''' (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring should never be an option. You took the right steps in presenting an WP:RPP, but fell for the trap of entering the edit warring cycle. I hope you understand that this has nothing to do with you as an editor or your opinion about the topic. WP:3RR is a simple, but strict, rule. I appreciate that you understood the warning and stopped. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 21:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

In Other Words...

In other words, agree with me or I'll get you in trouble. Come now. My removal of access to pornographic information on an article about a football match is hardly grounds to threaten action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.161.91 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not asking you to agree with me. You need to get community consensus on a change that removes a reliably referenced statement. The WP:3RR policy is pretty clear. You would get "in trouble" for breaking the policy, not for your opinion. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 20:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Bottom line is WP:NOTCENSORED. No room for "think of teh childrenz!!!!1!!!" '''tAD''' (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Please don't take that attitude with the IP. They are entitled to their opinion, and should have sought community consensus instead of trying to push their POV into an article without discussion. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 21:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor weighing in, that IP editor had a point. There was no need for such profanity in the article and this compromise suggestion [2] by the IP was fine, though it was made after the 3RR report went in. Citing WP:NOTCENSORED to force profanities into an article really was childish. I'm severely tempted to suggest this goes to ANI for further scrutiny as there was bad behaviour all round. WCM_email 00:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right, WCM. I am also inclined towards the IP's last suggestion to remove a blatant (and unnecessary) obscenity from the article, but the IP made the edit despite being warned to reach consensus in the talk page. I am still sure that a proper position in the article's talk page would surely find support among its editors (not to remove the sentence itself, but to focus on what's important about it without any unnecessary explicit language).

However, I don't think that this needs to be presented at AN/I. Drill had been dealing with this issue for about four days, and it seems emotions got out of hand. I'm sure that, once the dust settles, everyone will be able to use their heads more clearly. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 00:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you for improving my clumsy prose at User:Chillum/LetsTalkAboutNPA. Chillum 05:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum: Mighty kind of you! I hope you can achieve the goal of diminishing the rampant civility problems in Wikipedia.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 10:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Sinebot(Wikipedian) or Sinebot(legendary)?

In the last reply you sent me, you said by LEGEND that you have to say Sinebot three times in a mirror and it will eat you. Do you mean Sinebot(Wikipedian) or Sinebot(legandary)? According to what you have on your user page, there is a high possibility that you meand Sinebot(Wikipedian). Gerry.y.ma (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sinebot plays with its prey. You never know when it will strike. It may take seconds, it may take years, but Sinebot always meets its objective.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 23:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

John Cyril Porte

Can you help enforce your third opinion at John Cyril Porte. The anonymous IP insists on keeping all the images, even ones I added when I started the article, and am now removing to declutter. I am removing ones I added as a compromise, so the anon can highlight his contributions. You can also help decide which image is best for the infobox, the current one is the highest quality but it does run vertically and take up room that other images could be in. We have to decide as to whether we should have high quality or high quantity. I moved an image to the left so we get a staggered formation, but that also makes it crowded. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is the same, and I don't understand how I can enforce it beyond again restating the same. The IP has to abide by the WP:MOSIM guidelines. Excessive amount of pictures is disruptive to an article. Maybe try encouraging him to write more text? Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 02:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

!!!!!

So, are you making fun of User:Sinebot? Or do you mean another sinebot? Gerry.y.ma (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sinebot is an, uhm, bot. It makes automated edits. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 19:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion request

Hello. If there's a way to remove my third opinion request, I would like to do that. I was involved in an argument with another user, Flyer22, on the Sigmund Freud talk page, but given what I've recently learned about that user (please review her talk page), I don't feel it's appropriate to engage in any kind of content discussion with her. I hope you will agree that the best thing is to decline the 3O request and forget the entire matter. ImprovingWiki (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@ImprovingWiki: Thanks for the note. I removed it. Regards.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 19:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Llamerada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aymara. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

GOCE July drive and August blitz

Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up Participation: Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the 40 people who signed up this drive, 22 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2400 articles to 2199 articles in July. This is a new month-end record low for the backlog. Nice work, everyone! Blitz: The August blitz will run from August 24–30. The blitz will focus on articles from the GOCE's Requests page. Awards will be given out to everyone who copy edits at least one of the target articles. The blitz will run from August 24–30. Sign up here! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)