User talk:MarshalN20/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:MarshalN20. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Photos from Larco museum?

Hi, I found you through the list of Wikipedians in Lima. I was in Lima this summer and I visited the wonderful Larco Museum. I didn't have a camera with me at the time, and now I regret it. Among many other things, I distinctly remember very interesting Moche sculptures of dead people masturbating that would make a great addition to our Moche articles. Wikimedia Commens doesn't yet have any of those. Do you think it would be possible for some Wikipedians to organize a photo trip to the museum? That would be great. I also posted this request to User talk:Le K-li. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Peru national football team

You should get a peer review for it before an FAC. Spiderone 16:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Marshall

How are you? I haven't seen you for a while.

I don't know if you noticed, but Keysanger today was doing some drive-by of speedy deletions.

Luckily I spotted the article I created (Occupation of Lima) right on time, and was able to save it. I know you created some as well. I placed the -hang on- tag on two, but I can't see them on my contributions, so they might have been deleted. In any case, you can still recover them (assuming that you want to do that) by contacting the administrator that processed the speedies.

Ok I just wanted to let you know that.

Take care. Likeminas (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Note

Hello, MarshalN20. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (MarshalN20)

Hello, MarshalN20. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MarshalN20, where you may want to participate. Erebedhel (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC) .

Sock Puppet

He himself can check your IP and my IP and then he'll realize how stupid hes gonna look. If he blames me as your sock puppet for expressing my ideas and facts then he seriously needs to get brains.--Unknown Lupus | ^Talk 21:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MarshalN20 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I discussed the my changes as can be seen here [1] and here [2]. *I found consensus from plenty of other users, including User:Dentren ("I more {or} less agree with Marshal") and User:Unknown Lupus ("I'm agreeing with you Marshal"). Therefore, I was not doing "Disruptive Editing." *I did not "edit war" (and if I did, then it was by all means not my intention). You can check my edit history and you'll see that after I posted up the problem in the "Edit Warring Noticeboard," I stopped editing the article and kept trying to address the problems with the other editor only through the talk page. You can check that here: [3] *You can also check the article's edit history and you'll see that I was not the only person that was against this other editor's disruptive editing. *I did not break the 3RR as I did not do the 4 reversions that the website declares as needed for the 3RR to take effect. Moreover, I explained most of my edits (except maybe a couple), including my reversions, in the Diablada page. All of my edits had been previously discussed and accepted by most editors in the talk page. *Moreover, it was not me who was doing the "controversial changes." As I already demonstrated in this paragraph, there was consensus on the information that I was trying to protect.

Decline reason:

Block has expired. Closedmouth (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This unblock request is too confused. please review WP:GAB, especially WP:NOTTHEM, and shorten it. Sandstein 19:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I shortened it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Anybody there? Bloop blap blep blip.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

While Blocked

Son de los Diablos

The Son de los Diablos (English: Rhythm of the Devils) is an Afro-Peruvian dance that developed as a mixture between African, Spanish, and Native American rhythms. Nicomedes Santa Cruz explains that, despite popular opinion, the Son de los Diablos has no links with African rituals or with the Andean Morenada, but rather that it is more likely related to the Diablada.^[1]

Developed during the Viceroyalty of Peru with origins in Spain, the Son de los Diablos was assimilated by the black slaves living in the Spanish colony. After the independence of Peru in 1821, people of African descent lived in alleys near churches and plazas of Lima, where festivities were held. Before the celebrations, blacks joined the festivities by forming gangs that danced the Son de los Diablos.

Much like the Diablada, the Son de los Diablos was heavily influenced by the Spanish Corpus Christi celebrations, it was predominantly practiced by an ethnic community (in this case the Afro-Peruvian community), and it was banned from religious celebrations by the Catholic Church in 1817. Nonetheless, the dance would remain an important part of carnival celebrations in Lima up until the early 20th century.^[2] The dance would gain a revival in the 1950s when Jose Durand used Pancho Fierro's depictions of the dance and the information provided by old Son de los Diablos dancers in order to once again bring the dance back to life.^[2]

A distinguishing factor of the Son de los Diablos is its usage of such instruments as the Cajita, a small wooden box that opens and closes creating a distinctive sound, and the Quijada, the jawbone of a horse, donkey, or mule, that when hit creates a raspy buzz.^[2]

Help

Could you help with translations and text inside "War of the Pacific" article. My english is not nice. Arafael (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Estare fuera de wikipedia una semana, asi que si hay algo importante le pido lo posponga hasta el 20 de octubre. Arafael (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

3RR again

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

This is to warn you about a discussion involving you in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

--Erebedhel - Talk 08:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

General tone

MarshalN20,

I have looked at the question of edit warring above quietly and calmly. Please could you also calm down and use measured language. No one will find against you without looking at the edits and thinking about what is happening. Ranting does not improve your credibility. --BozMo talk 13:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There are other comments you made... "the idiotic government of Bolivia, and several ignorants from said nation" "Evo Morales has brainwashed Bolivians" "Bolivian propaganda" . The joke "And that Bolivians dance the Diablada every single day sounds very nice; but that might be one of the reasons Bolivia has such a high mortality rate" was only facetious (and vaguely amusing) but the rest was inflamatory. I wonder where this debate went to on Spanish Wikipedia --BozMo talk 14:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit War

I'm getting tired of this edit war with Erebedhel. The kid is stubborn as hell, but i guess stubbornness is a good thing when one plans to reach a goal. Estoy cansado de esto. Solamente mantendre un ojo en el articulo de la Diablada. Fue obvio que Erebedhel dijiera "comments made by inexperienced contributors", como a el no lo insultaron el ahora dice que todos debemos seguir las reglas de Wikipedia y cuando a el le dicen algo sobre eso el dice que estamos insultando a su nacionalidad. Es imposible discutir con el. Cada vez que le pregunto como pueden decir que la Diablada es Boliviana cuando Bolivia nunca existio en ese tiempo siempre cambia la conversasion.

Parte de editacion que hizo 165.91.173.68 al articulo: according to the UNESCO and the Real Academia de la Lengua Española, the dance is traditional from the Bolivian city of Oruro, and from there it spread to other parts of the Bolivian altiplano. This theory can be verified by simply looking at the map: Bolivia Oruro is at the center from where the other places are located (Simple logic).

Es tanta coincidencia que el mismo IP que edito my pagina de usuario y tambien la tuya y puso que yo era un "Sock puppet" tuyo y que tu eras un "chilean acting like a perusian." tambien sepa la misma cosa que Erebedhel dijo sobre la definicion de La Diablada en la Real Academia de la Lengua Española y tambien sepa las acusaciones que Erebedhel puso contra ti sobre tener "sock puppet accounts". Hasta tambien saco el mismo apodo que Erebedhel llamo a Peruamos, no te acuerdas que los llamaba "Peruans" igual que el tal 165.91.173.68 los llamo en la pagina de discusion. Me parece que sea tanta la coincidencia, no crees? Unknown Lupus | ^Talk 00:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Mapa

Map of South America with the allied countries in colours, red dots are battles in chronological order as follow: A-Chincha Islands, 1-Papudo, 2-Valparaiso, 3-Abtao and 4-Callao

Hellow, I would like to ask you for help. Usaer Clocac insist in that this map I made is no presentable on wikipedia. I dont know what to do, first I corrected Tumbes as Peruvian and now he goes on to insist on that other thing are wrong also. It is extrmely difficult or i mpossible to establish a really accurate map, since boder treaties in that time were unprecise and disputed. Would you like to "correct" the map? Plaese consired also that Ecuador had claims on what is now the Peruvian Amazon. Or you perhaps thinks (as I do) that the map is good enougth to be on the article Chincha Islands War, because that article is not about the Peru--Ecuador border but of a Spanish neo-colonial war. Dentren | ^Talk 23:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Zambrano

Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page Carlos Zambrano. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation do's and don'ts, you should:

Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
Use short sentence fragment descriptions, which should not end with punctuation
Use only one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry, and avoid red links
Not pipe links—keep the full title of the article visible

Edits are not vandalism simply because they come from IPs. The article on the baseball player was at the plain title until a few days ago, without dispute. If you continue to press this issue without discussion, I will have the baseball player's page moved back through WP:RM per standard procedure as a controversial move. 210.161.33.186 (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted

I'm glad to know that finally a formal Sockpuppet Investigation has been conducted (I hope that BozMo is properly informed about the result as I wouldn't like him to distrust me). I now understand that the timing of my appearance was probably not the best and was one of the reasons of why we had such a rough start. I also apologize for the RfC I now consider it wasn't the best thing to do and I hope that we can leave that aside after it's closed during this weekend. I also hope that the mediation cabal could help us finish this dispute, meanwhile I can't get back in time but I promise that none of my actions in the future will be in an aggressive or hostile way but I still consider that the article can be perfected and could have more information. I've been reading WP:TRUTH which is funny essay about most Wikipedians conduct and I think we both fell into that. I consider that WP:NPOV is a complex matter and I think it'd be a good idea to read the extensive information about it available on Wikipedia and use the correct tools for dispute resolution in a friendly and peaceful way. I'm reading this week the following manuals, perhaps you'd like to read them as well so we can talk about the same things next week without entering in any bitter argument again:

Those aren't policies but only advices written by other Wikipedians to improve the quality of articles so please don't think that if I mention them it's any kind of accusation or anything like that.

Best regards --Erebedhel - Talk 00:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Carlos Zambrano

On reflection, I am starting to agree with you that there should be a disambiguation page, because there is no clear primary topic. You haven't made this easy, because of the arrogant and offensive way you stated your views here. Your argument boils down to saying that soccer is more popular than baseball, therefore any soccer player must be more important than any baseball player. This is utter nonsense; I don't think many Venezuelans would agree with you. But that's not the point; the point is that both of these persons are reasonably well-known within their respective sports, and it is probably impossible for either of their articles to meet the primary topic standard.

I also think you are way out of line to change the redirect while the WP:RM discussion is still open; any changes should wait until that discussion is completed. Your latest change is particularly disruptive; did you even look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Carlos Zambrano to see how many links you would be breaking by redirecting to the soccer player? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Formal Mediation as next step after Mediation Cabal

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Diablada has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Diablada and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Erebedhel - Talk —Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC).

I think there is a misunderstanding

Formal Mediation main objective is to try to isolate the user conduct problem and focus only in content, the "Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted" is only to list the steps the filling party (i.e. me) followed before requesting a Formal Mediation it's supposed to be only a brief list and not a discussion. If we don't follow the format required, the request will be denied. Could you please remove then and bring your concerns through the correct channels? I'm only asking you to sing:

#Agree. ~~~~

in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Diablada#Parties' agreement to mediate and in the discussion just follow the steps and address exclusively to the content.

Thank you --Erebedhel - Talk 17:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Actually if you please you can move them to the talk page is just a matter of format. --Erebedhel - Talk 17:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Diablada.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

presidential election, 2009

Hello there is dispute going on Talk:Chilean presidential election, 2009 about the image of Sebastián Piñera would you mind to give your opinion? Dentren | ^Talk 22:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello MarshalN20! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 329 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Miguel Company - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Joel Sánchez (Peruvian footballer) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ryan's talk page

I don't consider correct to have a threaded discussion on Ryan's talk page so I'll move it here:

I'll not continue this conversation on Ryan's for respect but I'll point out something. Both of us have Workshops User:MarshalN20/Sandbox - User:Erebedhel/Workshop, precisely for this purpose. I have plenty of observations about MarshalN20's version but I, for respect, keep my opinions till the mediation starts. What is disrespectful is that attitude of criticizing something that isn't even finished, unlike MarshalN20, I clearly put a warning sign at the top of my page saying so, I respectfully abstained myself from editing the page. And above all what is more disrespectful is that tone like if he pretended to "lecture" me about ethics and neutrality while what he has been is precisely pushing his irrational hatred towards a country that have never done any harm to him, calling Bolivians ignorants and trying to nullify its entire culture by pushing fringe theories and ranting out of proportion while this could be a simple case of WP:NOTLEX. I'm sorry for disturbing your talk page but sadly my patience is gone, I tried by all means to stay calm towards this person's attitude but I had enough.Erebedhel - Talk 16:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You're now calling me a "dog" that "buy[s] edit counts." Wow. Seriously? That's what what you call respect?

All you've done thus far is insult me. Do you really think that is going to solve the problem? I don't need to put a "warning" sign to my sandbox page because, quite obviously, it is a sandbox that doesn't even have "Diablada" anywhere on the title.

What irrational hatred? I already apologized for my comments posted long ago in the talk page of the article. The "edit counts" you call my edits on the article are simple minor changes, the most important one being moving the bibliography section upwards (But, apparently, that shows my "hatred" for Bolivians).

Moreover, thus far you keep showing a systematic bias towards Bolivia. Your "workshop" article is completely made in favor of Bolivia. Just by simply reading the introduction the reader can tell that the article is biased. Why don't you want to understand that what you are doing is unethical?

Finally, I don't care if your patience is gone. I have already asked, politely, for you to quit insulting me; focus on the material and not the editor. I propose, as I have done in the past, to work together in the article rather than to argue over it. Neutrality is the solution, but you don't want to accept it.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If that offends you then I apologize but I seriously consider that we should just leave the article alone till Ryan finds time, is just common courtesy. Besides I never received an apology for your offensive comments, in the 5 months I've been dealing with you I never insulted you I just asked you to address me with respect and you didn't so don't play the victim now.

You think my article is in favour of Bolivia, I think your article is in favour of Peru. Mediation is meant to find a middle point. My article is not finished as I said, what I did was compile the information I have to explain it later, that's what workshops are meant for.

Regarding the warning sing I'm not asking you to put one, but I do ask you to read mine and not take conclusions if it's not on the main article you don't have any reason to complain. Besides the lead in both versions is overly long I'll abridge it when I finish it.

Finally why don't you read what systematic bias really means, it doesn't have anything to do with what you're saying. It just says that some countries have more contributors, e.g USA, and they have more articles. And I consider that your concept of ethics is not clear to you, why don't take a look on all the articles in Category:Peruvian culture, under your perspective all of them would be "unethical".

I appreciate your last paragraph, even though I said the words "I have already asked, politely, for you to quit insulting me; focus on the material and not the editor" several times in the past to you and I really don't appreciate your last sentence, e.g. take a look at the Honduran nwewspaper you quoted before, it says:

"El Ministerio de Culturas de Bolivia aclaró que La Diablada es uno de los íconos más importantes del Carnaval de Oruro, declarado como Obra Maestra y Patrimonio Oral e Intangible de la Humanidad por la Unesco en 2001.

En tanto analistas peruanos dicen que 'La Diablada' es desde hace siglos una manifestación cultural que comparten Perú y Bolivia en la zona altiplánica fronteriza y que incluso se puede observar también en el norte de Argentina y hasta en Ecuador."

"Ethically" you should mention that those who consider the Diablada belongs to all those places are "the Peruvian analysts" and not hide the information regarding the Cultures Ministry. Neutrality consists in presenting both sides not only one.

I hope that now that we called Ryan's attention he hopefully will officially start with the mediation, I believe he just forgot to watchlist the page, but meanwhile I'll work in my Workshop and you on yours and I suggest to avoid any unnecessary confrontation. Erebedhel - Talk 18:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I provided my apologies for those comments when the time came, several months ago. If you didn't find them, then that's not my problem. You're implicitly insulting me; it's nothing "general" such as those comments I made about Bolivians (which are a wide population). Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks.

The lead section in the article in my workshop is of an appropiate size. Lead sections are supposed to be a summary of the main information of the article. If the article is as thorough as that of the Diablada, then it deserves to have a relatively medium sized lead.

Systematic Bias is the "is the inherent tendency of a process to favor particular outcomes." You have an inherent tendency to favor Bolivia. You have a systematic bias. I suggest you read the dictionary.

The point of using sources is to gather relevant information from the sources. It is a fact that the Diablada is also danced in Ecuador and Argentina. I've seen them dance it. There is no need to put that Peruvian analysts say that because it's not relevant.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You didn't apologize for those comments and specially not to me, you specifically said "However, this apology does not go for anything beyond that" when you wrote me. You could have just lower your tone when I first asked you to please talk with respect but you started to attack me and continued till now. I just consider that it's enough, you could have been just editing the articles you're interested in more than Folklore, and never see each others again, you haven't edited the article in two months and you said that you don't care about the subject you just wanted to fight for it on the talk page.

Why don't you read twice if you need what's Systematic bias and the difference between Systemic bias. As for your suggestion I find it offensive, you'll not imply that I'm ignorant, ok?

And finally I consider that your mental process of gathering "relevant" information from sources contains a Systemic bias and that's why we need a moderator to analyze both interpretations. But I can assure you something, as I mentioned before one of Wikipedia's standards require attribution.Erebedhel - Talk 22:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Attribution to what? So, if I say that the sky has clouds, then on the "sky" article of Wikipedia we have include; "According to MarshalN20, the sky has clouds." I'm not the only one who thinks the sky has clouds; by God, the whole world sees the clouds in the sky! That would be quite a daring claim from my part. Similarly, "Peruvian analysts" haven't said anything out of the ordinary. In Ecuador there does indeed exist a dance which they call a Diablada. What's more, that dance is also a root from the Spanish Autos Sacramentales and the Native ideologies. What makes that Diablada (Yes, because it's name is also "Diablada") non-existant? Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Therefore, that also doesn't mean that the "Peruvian Analysts" are saying anything truly relevant.

I did apologize for the comments I made, and I even provided a link for my wrong actions in past discussions (not necessarily with you; but I don't have to apologize to you for a general statement that I made). In fact, I still won't apologize to you for the general statement I made; my apology for that statement is simply a general apology (because I didn't aim it at any specific person in particular). This is quite unlike you, because you obviously referred to me as a dog.

I'm a historian. Of course I'm interested in anything related to history. Just because I don't care about dances and other silly things of that sort, it doesn't mean that I don't want for history to be shown correctly. I'm not going to support any version of the Diablada article that systematically favors Bolivia; nor would I support a version of the article if it favored any specific point of view aside that of Bolivia.

"Systematic bias is often used in exactly the same manner as the term systemic bias, though systematic is the older and more common form."

I'm not implying that you're ignorant. I simply said, "read the dictionary." We're discussing the definition of a word, hence my response. Why do you take such simple things offensively? On the other hand, you are the one who compared me with a dog.

I haven't edited the article in two months because I am focused on my studies. I barely have time to sleep! Much less do I have time to go on a search of information.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk

Well precisely doing that constitutes original research specially in a topic that is not familiar for most people.

You mentioned it to BozMo but those comments are still there, besides I'm the one offended and that apology didn't arrive to me. Besides your whole attitude on the article is "trying to prove Bolivians are ignorants" which is even more offensive.

It's clear on your user page that you like Military History for example, nobody is forcing you to edit articles about dances, besides one historical fact is that during the 20th century nobody questioned that the Diablada was originated in Oruro, the version of Juli started after a campaign of the newspaper Correo and the Native Association Puno in 2003, it says so clearly in one of your sources. I'll not go further on the discussion about the article content as I consider this is not the place, unless that's what you want, but I consider that the article not only is systematically biased towards Peru but also lacks of information from very important sources. And I'm only trying to find a space to deal with these details in an ordered and civil environment which you for your temper are blocking it, editing peacefully in my workshop wasn't a provocation whatsoever and your reaction was completely unnecessary.

Unlike you I did say that if the "dog" remark offended you I apologize and here it is again. But I didn't say you were one, I said that, based on your comment you made on your opening statement, you have the belief that by increasing your edit counts on an article you were gaining some sort of status allowing you to denigrate others. That's the pattern I observed in the article that you didn't edit anything for days, week or months then someone upsets you and you again edit it, is like you were trying to show you own the article, is just an observation.

I'm "easily offended" because you're offending me with that tone, like you actually thought you had some sort of authority upon me. I don't consider that you have anything to "teach" me, you should first observe your own acts and learn to respect other countries before coming here and humiliate me for asking you to address me with respect. So I'm asking you, either dedicate to study and get some sleep or do articles about military history or Age of Empires or anything but let's just avoid colliding with each others, I like anthropology I like linguistics and I have been collaborating for years and nobody ever accused me of the things you're pretending to accuse me. Erebedhel - Talk 23:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If there are a series of sources certifying the statement in question, there is no need to mention a specific group or person.

You saw the message in BozMo's page, so now you can shut it. I'm not trying to prove Bolivians are ignorant. If the demands made by Bolivia are ignorant (e.g., "Andean culture is only Bolivian culture"), that's not my problem.

No. That is what you want to believe; in fact, that is what the Bolivian government wants its people to believe. However, thus far the information provided by the sources demonstrate otherwise. Garcilaso de la Vega didn't write his work in 2003; and people from Puno have always attributed the Diablada as their typical dance. You attempt to use dates in order to justify the validity of the information; but the matter of fact here is that it doesn't matter whether a source was published in 2000 or 1700. The only distinction made between sources is as to whether they are primary, secondary, or visual. Nothing more, nothing less.

It deeply saddens me to see Bolivians arguing with Peruvians, even after we faced a common loss that is not foreign to both of our peoples. You compared me with a dog, whether you meant it or not that is exactly what your sentence structure pointed out.

Like I added before, I don't have time to do long articles anymore (and I probably won't until this upcoming summer). I wish I could, but I simply cannot. People, Wikipedians, often make short edits in different articles. All I did was simply move the bibliography section to its correct place. That doesn't deserve me getting compared to a dog.

What tone? I am not talking to you, much less am I setting "tone" to my writing (I'm not a professional writer; if I could "tone" my writing then I probably would dedicate my time to be a novelist and not a historian). This all depends on how you read what I write. I am not angry at you, though I am a little bothered. If you can re-create that "bothered" tone, then go ahead and do so.

Humiliate you? How am I humiliating you? Just learn to put with what people write in the internet. Everybody has an opinion, and I can assure you that I won't be the only person you'll ever hear to say something about Bolivians. I mean, if you think what I said is terrible, then perhaps you should go and look at the War of the Pacific article and see what the Chilean editors wanted to do to Bolivia, and then compare the constant arguments I found myself in defense for Bolivia. For example, they wanted to blame the war on Bolivia, they wanted to claim Bolivians were attacking Chileans in Bolivia, they wanted to claim that Bolivians had evil intentions, they wanted to claim that Bolivians were the ones who betrayed Chile and Peru, etc.; where were the Bolivians at that time? Nowhere. It was only me, a person who is not even Bolivian, the one who had to go on the defense of a whole country in the English wikipedia (later some other people came, but that only made the mess bigger). It was thanks to both my work and that of user:Arafael that we were able to do what was right. And yet you think that all I'm doing in the Diablada article is attempt to make Bolivia look bad.

Apparently, unlike you, I have already been in past discussions with people who don't like me because I attempt to bring out different opinions. When you created that list of "bad things" that I did, it didn't surprise me that user "Keysanger" got his hands involved in the mess because he was the person I argued the most with in the "War of the Pacific" article (If it had been up to him, the article would simply hold the point of view of Chile); in the same way, it didn't surprise me that he sought Wikipedia to ban me in order for his biased information against Bolivia to remain unchallenged. Yet, I doubt you even cared.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That phrase was in response to your comment about seeing devils in other countries, but anyway what I mean by attribution when different opinions arise upon a determinate topic is to make distinctions such as Peruvian scholars say this Bolivian scholars says that.

Regarding your comment "I'm not trying to prove Bolivians are ignorant. If the demands made by Bolivia are ignorant (e.g., "Andean culture is only Bolivian culture"), that's not my problem." that's highly offensive and that's the bottom of the whole problem, you called me a hypocrite before and why don't you think it's "ignorant" all the articles that are considered Peruvian culture or the Peruvian demand on Chile for the Pisco?

Besides that's a bigger problem because you actually think that it's a recent thing, that it's just Evo Morales idea, which is offensive for the people who support him and even worst for the people who don't, as I told you it was part of the Bolivian cultural policy on the UNESCO archives since 1977 and the 107 pages study backing up the information on the UNESCO declaration reads "the ritual centre of worship since its beginnings was the city of Oruro, and no other". Nobody, outside Peru considers the Diablada as Peruvian, not the anthropologist Max Harris, Not the Board of the Ball de Diables in Tarragona, even all the Chilean historians consider that the Diablada was born in Oruro. Just a sample the Australian scholar Jennifer Heath [4] says clearly Oruro is the home of the Diablada, yes or no? or she was brainwashed too? It's all in my bibliography. You are the only one trying to believe that it isn't true and enclosing yourself in just few unreliable sites and Morales Serruto's rants while extended and professionally made studies by the PhDs that you love so much say other thing.

However on a personal side I'd never consider that Peru wouldn't have the right to dance the Diablada, what annoys me is that negationist attitude of trying to say that it was born in Juli when it was danced for 2000 years in Oruro.

I know that most Wikipedians do small edits, but mentioned several times and it's on your Opening Statement you mentioned that you believe that by having more edits gives you more authority in the article, which is something I disagree.

Well I'm not the only one who asked you to watch your tone BozMo did the same, but in general your wording is rude so people get offended perhaps you don't notice this because English is not your native language or, as you said on other occasion, you think you're joking and people would understand your tone by watching you across the screen. But as a rule of thumb, just don't tag with "ignorant", "brainwashed" or things like that to others.

Finally, yes you mentioned the War of the Pacific article, and well as I told you that's your area of interest, I'm not the police here, if we collided was because the Diablada was my area of interest and I believe I have many good studies about it, in English made by respectable people, but your attitude was out of proportion. So now I'm asking you, your interests are completely opposite to mine so we don't have the need to see each others until the mediation starts, I won't edit the Diablada article until we can have the attention of the mediatior but meanwhile, just let's avoid conflict, that's all I'm asking. Erebedhel - Talk 19:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You want to avoid conflict when it was you who began this discussion? Or, did I begin to argue with you when you told Ryan that I was "patrolling" articles and that my actions should be checked? I most certainly did not. I let you talk bad about me for the sake of not making any conflict; and, yet, when I ask Ryan (our mediator) to take a look at your currently biased "workshop" article, you aggressively begin to personally attack me. Yet, you complain about being insulted and now ask to "avoid conflict." That's called being a hypocrit. There's no way to sugar-coat the word Hypocrit.

The "Peruvian scholars" and the "Bolivian scholars" thing could most certainly work in the history section of the article (where it actually goes in depth of the material). However, this does not apply for the introduction which is supposed to be an overview of the Diablada, not of specific demands or arguments.

My statement is not offensive. I'm not asserting that Bolivians are ignorant. That's why there's the word "if." Perhaps you don't understand this because English is not your native language as well.

Peruvian culture overlaps the culture of certain countries, particularly that of Bolivia. Once more, Peru is not the one which is "stealing" Bolivian culture. That culture belongs to the Andean region; it belongs to Bolivia and Peru (not to a single nation).

No. I know this "Diablada dispute" is not a recent thing; despite it is you the one who claims that Peru is "making up" arguments as of 2003 in order to "disprove" the Bolivian ideas. I blame Evo Morales because, as the head of government, he represents the Bolivian government; he further represents past Bolivian governments and their constant arguments in regards to this matter.

UNESCO does not mention the Diablada as a dance of sole Bolivian ownership. Why can't you understand that the UNESCO was simply refering to the Carnaval de Oruro as a whole and not to anything specific? If the UNESCO actually had anything to say in regards to this dispute, they would have already said by this point.

Scholars have a right to propose different ideas on the matter. Let me make this clear by setting it in bold: The Diablada's origin is debatable between Oruro, Potosi, and Juli. Nowhere in the current Diablada article's introduction (which is the most developed part of it at this point) does it favor one idea over the other. As stated before, only chronology is used in order to place Juli first, followed by Oruro and Potosi. Despite that, the first sentence of that paragraph clearly states that there is a dispute in regards to the origin of the dance. It is unethical to favor one place over the other, which is what you keep trying to do in regards to Oruro.

What opening statement? Please provide this "opening statement" you speak about because I'm not understanding anything from that statement.

I can and will keep using whatever wording pleases me whenever I do my writing. "Ignorant" is not an insult; rather, "stupid, imbecile, and idiot," would be its insulting related words. "Brainwashed" was not an appropiate word to use; but, as stated before, I already provided my general apologies.

You can go ahead and keep waiting for Ryan. The Diablada article is still in need of major improvements. You hold quite a lot of information in your Workshop which would greatly improve the article, but throughout the work you still have present a deep Bolivian bias that you do not wish to accept. Neutrality is the only thing that I am asking; once that can be achieved everything would be solved.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I mean the opening statement of the mediation, I tried to write mine without mentioning you, yet you wrote that full of "the other party did this did that" which is stated in the guidelines of formal mediation as a common mistake that only makes the environment of mediation more difficult. And my comment was upon that, you entered mediation wanting to fight not to find a solution and the mediator should be aware of that. You expressed your complain and I politely made sure that you had the last word on his page, so now I ask you again let's avoid conflict.

The introduction should provide a concrete definition of what is contained in the article, and specifically should show the different points of view about the subject. In my Workshop I'd never mention the word "sole" or imply such thing, the debate is about the origins and the patrimonial identity. Chile's POV for example, is based on the idea that the Diablada was originated in Oruro and even though it was brought to Chile in the 1950's they consider the Diablada as part of their cultural heritage for sharing common ancestry, which is also valid and deserves to be explained. I didn't develop that part yet, but I'll do so in the next days. It surprises me that you fail to see that in the lead section of the present article while right there in the second paragraph shows a bias to make it look as the "Aymaran Rome" was the birthplace no matter how much you bold it, it's obvious that in the present article there is a clear bias to the Juli theory, besides there is a clear policy regarding WP:UNDUE, if most literature about the Diablada says Oruro is the birthplace, secondly Juli and thirdly Potosí then the article should give each theory its respective place, not lying and hide information to make them look equally valid [5], lying and hiding information is highly more unethical. With chronology it'd be the same Oruro is 2000 years ago, Potosí 1538, Juli 1576.

I disagree with your perspective about the role of the UNESCO or Evo Morales on this thing. The UNESCO doesn't have any "enforcing" attributes upon what nations do, is not a police and will never say "Boliva has the sole ownership of the Diablada" it never participated in any disputes of that kind and it will never do it. What the UNESCO does is to document and coordinate with governments activities related to culture, their representatives in Bolivia documented the Diablada since 1977, in 1991 decided to start the process of declaring the Carnaval de Oruro as Cultural heritage of humankind, and in a workgroup leaded by Ivés de la Goublaye de Menorval representing the UNESCO, studied what is the Ito Festival, the Llama llama dance the Diablada and other dances. The UNESCO will never say anything further than that, only documents things, it's validity lays upon the reliability this organization has and therefore its studies are highly respected, the UNESCO have extensive material about Peruvian culture but there is no mention to the Diablada as Peruvian in their archives, check their website. And well I believe that Evo Morales is not a historian, actually the only Bolivian president who was a historian was Carlos Mesa so I really don't think that Morales' opinions are even relevant on this matter, regardless of his position in the government.

Finally, "Peruvian culture overlaps the culture of certain countries, particularly that of Bolivia"? if you are proud of calling yourself a historian then you should know perfectly well that the Republic of Peru is not the same as Viceroyalty of Peru the latter was a Spanish administrative entity, those are completely different things and confusing them is highly inaccurate. And well I can guarantee you that if you think you can and will continue using those adjectives with others you'll find yourself plenty of times on WP:WQA not from me because I'll honestly try to stay out of your way but many others would find that offensive.

Having said that I think this conversation has reached to its end, I'll continue working in my Workshop, I'll take into account your observations, and I hope that Ryan finds time to deal with the case anytime soon.If you do wish to debate about content, perhaps we could continue this on the mediation page or the article talk page. But meanwhile I really think it's better not to have any more confrontation. Best regards Erebedhel - Talk 22:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and continue with your insults. I have enough information to also create one of those RFC for your conduct. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Erebedhel - Talk 05:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hey There Marshal, i've been without internet for a while due to a recent move. I haven't been up to much lately other than just checking the pages on my watch list. I've been kinda disappointed on how some turned out, but what can i do I'm busier than ever nowadays although i try to change some stuff ever now and then to keep articles neutral and removing unnecessary information that pulls to one side than to the other. As always here are always people who change it back so it's a shame. How you been and what have you been up to? Unknown Lupus | ^Talk 19:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of Erebhedel's actions against me. Not worried at all about it, if he wants me banned then let him get some proof first, otherwise i could care less what he posts of me. It's sometimes a shame that everyone can edit the pages because they either delete information to put their opinions or they simply vandalize the page. Sometimes though good information is shared but that's rarely the case with IP editing. Good luck on your studies Marshal, if you need any help with pages I'll be happy to give aid. Unknown Lupus | ^Talk 17:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry MarshallN20, I did not mean to imply anything when I commented that you were not online. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's alright. I didn't take the matter personally. I know you didn't mean anything bad. Thank you for the apology.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Erebedhel - Talk 02:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sopaipilla

Hello mr Marshal. You might be interesting in taking a look into the Sopaipilla article. There is a user there that insist on removing info about sopaipillas in south america making it the article look as if sopaipillas were something unique from Texas and New Mexico. Of course the south american sopaipillas lacks sources but we all now (I suppose) that they are eaten here. Dentren | ^Talk 16:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I do like to help you to solve the ongoing disputes but I went to the diablada talk page and found nothing. If present any content dispute I will analize it. Just think its a waste of time to get involved in personal accusations and counter accusations.

PS. accoding to the Spanish article sopaipillas are also eaten en Southern Peru. Dentren | ^Talk 16:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Start class articles require sources just like any other

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as in Sopaipilla, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please find and add a reliable citation to your recent edit so we can verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. The comment you made in this diff [6] is WRONG -- and making such a claim that start class articles are exempt from policy won't get you very far. Just cite the material you're adding and all will be well. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! JBsupreme (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Marshal, I take on board your comments about feeling under attack, but I don't think Erebedhel was attacking you. Whether they are emotional or not is something that I think isn't really relevant to the mediation, however I'd be happy to discuss this more on my talk page, or preferrably via email so the messages don't inflame matters further and we can have a full and frank discussion. For the record, I don't see you make any insults towards Erebedhel, only a brief comment about his emotions.

I actually think we are beginning to make headway, largely thanks to the fact that you are both great editors and even if you are often at loggerheads you are both fairly reasonable. Certainly that makes my job much easier. :-)

Incidentally, sorry for the length of time that it took to respond to everything.

I think that Erebedhel's idea of a seperate section for each issue is a good one, also I like they way that they setup a table to compare versions. Do you find this helpful? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)