User talk:MarshalN20/Archive 7

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 5

Amazon River

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

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

Random?

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the Falklands Islands

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andres probably does not know, but I am currently under the supervision of Basalisk. This means that he has been entrusted by the Arbitration Committee to make sure my edits are done in accordance to WP policy. Moreover, as an administrator, Basalisk has been entrusted by the WP community to uphold WP policy. And, from personal experience, I know that Basalisk's advice is trustworthy.
Basalisk, reading your talk page (and mine), all I can comment about myself is that every single one of my edits has been done with utmost care to not only uphold WP's policy of verifiability, but also to duly refrain from hurting anyone's feelings (or pride) in the subject. My sole attempt has been to foster an academic respect among the editors, a task perhaps difficult (but not impossible) to achieve.
My contributions on Andres' talk page were aimed at promoting that respect. At no point did I attempt to secretly collude with Andres. In fact, I edited on Andres' user page (see [1]) only after Kahastok let me know that he was also aware of it (see [2]). Furthermore, I only included information which Andres was kind enough to fully present to me (text, pagination, book, author, etc.). Not only that, but Kahastok's excellent review on the Talk:Falkland Islands page was eventually going to go into greater analysis of the history section once it reached completion (which is also why I assumed Kahastok did not comment on Andres' page). However, if I understood things incorrectly, then I apologize for it.
Ultimately, all of the editors involved are good people (Wee, Kahastok, Gaba, Andres). I know their positions, understand their views, and (most importantly) respect their opinions. The essence of successful academic discussions is respect.
I also know that I am walking over a thin thread in this article, which is my only opportunity to demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that all that was said about me in the Argentine History case was a complete distortion of the truth.
But everyone knew that getting the Falkland Islands to GA/FA status was never going to be an easy task. Patience is key. We are closer to achieving this goal than we have ever been since the article was created. [:)] --MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

seleccion peruana

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

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

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

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

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

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

¿Donde esta el Vandalismo que usted me acusó?

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

Querido compatriota,

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

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

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

Botany featured

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

Nominated 512bits (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

We got two opposes right off the bat. There seems to be a fundamental disagreement about what the article should cover. One is from you know who. 512bits (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

We would be very grateful for your opinion of the Botany article, and for your support of its FA candidacy if you feel that is merited. Plantsurfer (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That's plenty. We'll see what they say and then decide. 512bits (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

AN Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Topic Ban Removal Request". Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Happy editing

Hi MarshalN20, I just did a read over of Talk:Falkland Islands and I have to say I have been rather favorably impressed with your editing there. Is there a reason why the page is fully protected still? NW (Talk) 16:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi NuclearWarfare. I would honestly rather contribute to more Latin American-related topics, specifically the Chincha Islands War (I have a read a couple of good books over it during the summer), but for the time being I am simply glad to be of help at Falkland Islands.

The article is protected due to a (strange) dispute over metric vs. imperial units. Unsurprisingly, it has been listed at WP:LAME. I think a new consensus has been listed for closure, but I have no idea what is going on with it. Other than that, I think the article should soon be ready for GA review. I think Wikipedia should receive a Nobel Peace prize if it passes FA status. Hahaha.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's probably also worth adding that my behavior remains the same as it had been prior to the topic ban. I did previously successfully mediate the development of the Falkland Islands "Sovereignty Dispute" section. AGK did also give me the funny name of "Civil POV-pusher". And either Tim or Kirill pointed out that they disregarded my position because they found the opposing argument "more convincing" (with my credibility apparently ignored due to my lack of FA stars). Moreover, I have countlessly apologized for my behavior in the move request of Paraguayan War.

All the ArbComm's topic ban amounts to is punishment. I honestly still don't understand what terrible damage I caused to deserve any of it. I am not a fascist, and there is no logical reason to censor a book due to the political leanings of the author. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Salchipapas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quechua (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) 12:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

re: Talk:Estadio Chile (poem)/GA1

I'd appreciate any feedback you have on the article, if you have any ideas. czar ♔ 21:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:FAC

I noticed your FAC of Peru national football team. As a sports fan, I was hoping you might consider reviewing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/archive1‎, which needs reviewers.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Your newish signature

Not sure if you've run across this, but due to having the same unique font and font color of your current signature, as well as user name which also has "Marshal" in it, I (and maybe some others) confused you (MarshalN20) with S Marshall. No biggee, just FYI. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

GOCE September 2013 drive wrap-up

Guild of Copy Editors September 2013 backlog elimination drive wrap-up newsletter

The September 2013 drive wrap-up is now ready for review. Sign up for the October blitz!

– Your project coordinators: Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Keysanger is back

Marshall, hello, please take notice than Keysanger has started -again- with his "clean up" editions in the War of the Pacific article. I just reverted its last edit, but I think this is just beginning over again. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 01:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ian. Yes, it seems Keysanger is back in that mood. Sadly, I am currently unable to participate in the matter. For what it's worth, the article as a whole is in bad shape. Keysanger's edit is like throwing an empty soda can into a public dump.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Friendly Reminder

[3] You are in danger of violating your topic ban, (MarshalN20 is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces.), whilst I sympathise that it was unwarranted and unjust, you are simply giving ammunition to you critics. I would suggest you redact your comments before others take advantage of them. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 13:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Wee. Aside from providing a quick suggestion to Keysanger's query, I made sure to only mention that Keysanger's edit (source removal) reflects a conflict of interest and likely vandalism. I believe this to be a valid exemption to the WP:TBAN, per the "obvious vandalism" clause. That said, I do not plan to discuss or write anything else in that regard. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Seriously mate, I urge you to walk away from this. I realise Keysanger is baiting you about your topic ban but those unaware of the history won't. I have stuck my neck out and commented about it at WP:ANI but really it is not going to help your case unless you disengage. I know how unfair all of this is believe me but really I am asking you to walk away from this before it ends in tears. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not that Ed is unaware of the history. He knows it, but his grudge against me seems to be stronger than his role as an administrator. Will simply removing my two comments at Talk:War of the Pacific really make a difference?

It's also important to point out that I have neither contacted Darkness Shines through e-mail, nor have I ever requested this user to be my "proxy" in any article. Keysanger is rampantly personally attacking Darkness Shines and myself. Why do these people always get away with insults, and administrators never seem to do anything about it?

Warm regards.--13:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI note

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. It mentions you, so i reckon you ought to be notified. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the notification, Lindsay. Although an unpleasant one, I appreciate you letting me know about it.

Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

GOCE Blitz wrap-up; join us for the November drive

Guild of Copy Editors October Blitz wrap-up

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

Progress report: During the seven-day blitz, we copy edited 42 articles from WikiProject Film's backlog, reducing it by a net of 34 articles. Hope to see you at the November drive in a few days! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Torchiest, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95 and The Utahraptor.

Sign up for the November drive!
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:FT topic question

Hello, you recently commented on the Featured Topic nomination Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Battlecruisers of the World/archive1. There have been three different versions of the topic box proposed - could you take a look at them and offer an opinion as to which is best? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Falkland Islands

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Falkland Islands you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Khazar2 -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014

Hi, if you haven't already, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Hi MarshalN20,

you have been incriminated in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 16:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating your topic ban,

you have been blocked from editing for 1 month. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Sandstein 19:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

In the initial closing statement, I overlooked that Falkland Islands is explicitly exempt from the topic ban. Sorry. But the block is maintained for the other topic ban violations outlined in the AE thread linked to above. Sandstein 19:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This is very unfortunate Marshall. I'd like to go on record stating that Marshall is the most civil, polite and knowledgeable editor regarding various areas of Latin American history that I've come across in my time editing WP. A one month block feels definitely unwarranted for a couple of minor comments in a talk page. Marshall is currently engaged in a GA review for the Falkland Islands article to which he has contributed extensively. Sandstein, couldn't the block be lifted and instead a restriction to collaborate only on that article for the duration of it be imposed? Completely blocking an editor like Marshall from WP is a serious loss to the project. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No, but MarshalN20 will be free to contribute in a restrictions-compliant manner after the block expires. The possible detrimental effect of MarshalN20's temporary removal from editing certain articles was already considered by the Arbitration Committee when they imposed the topic ban and its enforcement provision, and I am not competent to question that assessment. Sandstein 19:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you for the comment, Gaba. It's all okay. Sandstein's decision is justified. I acted based on the assumption that Keysanger made "obvious vandalism" (per WP:BANEX); Sandstein disagrees with my interpretation and blocked me for breaking the topic ban.

Sandstein had the option to either agree with me or disagree. In either case, the decision for a block (or no block) would have been justified.

What does sadden me a bit is that I get the feeling Sandstein's immediate block was harshly based on various erroneous assumptions (including that I was editing the history of the Falkland Islands in lieu of my topic ban). Also, it was my assumption that comments in AN/I and enforcement boards were exempt of topic ban restrictions as long as they have relevance to the topic.

And, lastly, I am concerned by the logic that "obvious vandalism" can only be equated to something such as "PENISPENISPENIS" (Sandstein's own words). In Keysanger's case, he even went as far as to delete the little country-flag identifiers (how is that not obvious vandalism?).

Ultimately, I never intended to break my topic ban per se. I justified all of my actions with premises, even if ultimately they turned out to be erroneous.

Cheers.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I have requested a block review at WP:AN and would advise you to make a block appeal. Blocks are not meant to be punitive and it clearly is in this case. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Wee. The premises you raise do make a strong case. The actions that took place did happen a couple of weeks ago. Moreover, not only was the AN/I case archived by this point, but I followed your advise and disengaged from matters.

I had no intention to continue anything on this matter.

Keysanger's enforcement report is reflective of vengeful, bad faith attitude.

Lastly, I again maintain that my actions were all justified by premises. If they were wrong, all that really was needed to be done was to tell me that my premises were wrong.

Blocking me is not really doing any benefit to Wikipedia.

I won't claim unblocking me is going to make the encyclopedia better, but I certainly don't view myself as one of the bad guys.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein, I apologize for the headache. I personally have nothing against you. In fact, you've been very kind to me in past "mistakes" I made also related to my topic ban. I appreciate that and your work in Wikipedia. However, I have to agree with Wee that the timing of the request and the immediate block decision (with no discussion and based on erroneous assumptions) casts doubt into the validity of the block. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming a constructive attitude to the situation. As you may know, arbitration enforcement decisions do not require consensus or discussion. As I explained at AE, based on your equivocal statements so far, I am not confident that the topic ban violations will not reoccur if the block is lifted. As in all cases where I impose sanctions, I am open to lifting the block if I am convinced that it is no longer required to enforce the topic ban. Sandstein 20:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandstein. I know little about Wikipedia's processes (except for what I have learned over the past few months). The promise I can make to you is that I will never again make assumptions (such as those concerning WP:BANEX) without prior consultation to you or other equally knowledgeable administrators. I also promise to not participate again in any discussion related to the War of the Pacific (at least until my topic ban is eliminated).

Perhaps my promise might not seem like much, but I believe NuclearWarfare can back it up. I promised him to take the article Falkland Islands to GA and FA status (see Talk:Falkland Islands/GA1). I always honor my promises. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Based on these statements, and the expectation that you will stay well clear of everything related to Latin American history in the future, whether or not you may deem any other user's conduct vandalistic or otherwise problematic, I am lifting the block. You should unwatch any related pages and not respond to any related messages to make sure you do not inadvertently violate the topic ban again. I am not really interested in discussing with you if anything is obvious vandalism or not; if it is, somebody other than you will act on it. Sandstein 20:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see this worked out fine, thank you Sandstein for reviewing your decision. Cheers all. Gaba ^(talk) 22:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sandstein. Yes, I will no longer make assumptions concerning the limits of my topic ban. It ultimately causes too many problems for everyone. I apologize for all the inconvenience this has caused.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I am just discovering that all tis happened because I still have the arbitration pages on my watchlist. I am happy that the block was lifted, and if I were you, Marshall, I'd be looking forward a removal of the topic ban in the future, after you have shown that what you were accused for is no longer valid. Happy week :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Harold. :)

The topic ban has been a punitive nuisance rather than a help. Perhaps the only thorn that truly hurts is all the insults and kicks people take at me while I stand in this precarious position.

However, looking at it from a positive perspective, I have met many good editors (including you & the arbitrators) and even reinforced good relationships with fellow contributors. I have also learned (mainly by trial-and-error) much about Wikipedia's rules and procedures; and continue to do so with passing time.

I'm grateful for these gifts, even if they are unintentional outcomes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Aw, heck

So here I come with the barnstar and you've just been blocked for a month! Well, I don't know any of the background for whatever wikidrahmaz may surround your life, but I do appreciate your work to bring Falkland Islands to GA. Few users would have had the patience or diplomacy to bring this to stability.

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For navigating the treacherous waters of Falkland Islands to bring it to GA status. Few editors would dare to tackle such a controversial article at this level; fewer still would have succeeded. It's been a pleasure working with you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Who knows, of course, if my GA promotion here will "stick"--I'm sure we'll see it at GAR sooner or later, and neutrality arguments can go on until the end of time--but to my mind, at least, you made it. Congratulations. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh good, unblocked already? In any case, my pleasure. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Khazar2. The waters in Wikipedia always tend to be rough, but it's good to have fellow sailors moving strong in the right direction. I hope to have the pleasure of interacting with you in the future as well (feel free to contact me if I can be of assistance). Cheers!--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I owe you one of these, too:

This editor won the Half Million Award for bringing Falkland Islands to Good Article status.

So double congrats! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

lol. Here I thought today would be a bad one. Turned out to be my best day in Wikipedia.

Everyone who contributed in Falkland Islands deserves the praise. It's a good day for Wikipedia.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 03:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Please do pass on the love and bling to any other users to deserve a share of the credit. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)