Misplaced Pages

User talk:MarshalN20: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:59, 14 August 2013 editMarshalN20 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,094 edits Warning← Previous edit Revision as of 12:43, 14 August 2013 edit undo192.35.35.40 (talk) Regarding the Falklands Islands: commentNext edit →
Line 64: Line 64:
Hi. I've been following the editing and discussion, looks broadly ok to me so far. I think you should avoid using potentially loaded language (such as your use of the word "colonised"). I think it's also best if you bind yourself to a 1RR restriction and to the ] cycle. I don't want you to be edit warring on this article, not even once. It would be better to stay squeaky-clean. ] ]⁄] 15:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Hi. I've been following the editing and discussion, looks broadly ok to me so far. I think you should avoid using potentially loaded language (such as your use of the word "colonised"). I think it's also best if you bind yourself to a 1RR restriction and to the ] cycle. I don't want you to be edit warring on this article, not even once. It would be better to stay squeaky-clean. ] ]⁄] 15:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
:Aye Aye Captain! --] | ] 16:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC) :Aye Aye Captain! --] | ] 16:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
::Repeating Laver's claim that the population has been gerry mandered in the Falkland Islands should be avoided. Its simply untrue and the information you added about demographics from it is largely incorrect. Its not homogenous as you claim, its ethnically diverse as noted in ]. The figures are there so why would you choose as a source a politically motivated tome and repeat claims motivated by political considerations as fact?
::I have to say that I am hugely disappointed by your comments about the history section that I largely wrote. It was written in a neutral fashion, by a consensus that included yourself and to claim its misleading is quite simply untrue. Why would you say that? ] (]) 12:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC) (WCM)


== Warning == == Warning ==

Revision as of 12:43, 14 August 2013

Please leave a message. I'll reply here or in your talk page.

This is MarshalN20's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 10 days 
Note: A bot archives contents of this page. No recent posts means no messages will be displayed below. Older messages are still readable in the archives (above). New messages may be added here. If you post a message here, I will reply on your talk page.

Arbitration motion proposed

Hi MarshalN20, the Arbitration Committee has proposed a motion in response to the amendment request you submitted. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Marshal. I have looked back at the motion above, and I see my colleagues have voted to allow your request. I do believe that is probably a mistake, for the reasons I set out when I voted. However, in answer to your suggestion that I have been unfair to you in the original case and again in this amendment request, I thought I'd write to you to say I have not intentionally acted against you, and I am very sorry you feel as though I have. Like most arbitrators, I actually try to act dispassionately; I don't generally see contributors who are brought to arbitration as actors in a dispute but as contributors with a body of edits that need to be scrutinised. While I may have concluded I don't approve of your edits, it was because I genuinely thought you were doing something wrong. And now that your amendment request has been allowed, I do genuinely hope you contribute successfully and productively to the Falklands article. I don't bear any ill-will towards you, and never have – I hope you accept that. With every best wish, AGK 14:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Peru national football team

Hey MarshalN20, I just saw that your FAC was archived for lack of consensus. I know the feeling, my first FAC with F.C. Porto's article was the same thing. I waited a month before trying again, and that helped. This time of the year is not the best for FAC as many users are taking their summer vacations. But be assured that when you resubmit your article for FAC you have my support again. Cheers! Parutakupiu (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I sent you a "thanks" through the edit history system, but I am not sure if it's working or not.
Regardless, thank you again for the comment. I am disappointed in the lack of consensus for FA status...but, then again, only two editors analyzed the article (one of them being you). I would have liked Ian to re-list it and wait for some more reviews, but he followed procedure and that's fine with me too. I will follow your advice and re-nominate the article in a month.
I really hope the Peru national football team article helps set a good model for other national football team articles to follow.--MarshalN20 | 05:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I got your 'thanks'. ;) Do that, leave it be for a while, and try again later this month. Don't be shy to ask reviewers to make a decision once you've addressed their comments. I know I did and it worked; I got the minimum consensus for promotion by doing that. As for the article, I do believe it's a standout model for such type of articles. Cheers and good luck. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

GOCE July 2013 copy edit drive wrap-up

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

We have completed our July backlog elimination drive.

The drive wrap-up newsletter is now ready for review.

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

Sign up for the August blitz! To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion passed

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Not withstanding the sanction imposed on MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) in Argentine History, he may edit Falkland Islands, its talk page, and pages related to a featured article candidacy for the article. This exemption may be withdrawn by Basalisk (talk · contribs) at any time, or by motion of the Arbitration Committee.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Good news. Thanks Callanecc.--MarshalN20 | 13:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Falklands Islands

Hi. I've been following the editing and discussion, looks broadly ok to me so far. I think you should avoid using potentially loaded language (such as your use of the word "colonised"). I think it's also best if you bind yourself to a 1RR restriction and to the WP:BRD cycle. I don't want you to be edit warring on this article, not even once. It would be better to stay squeaky-clean. Basalisk berate 15:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Aye Aye Captain! --MarshalN20 | 16:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Repeating Laver's claim that the population has been gerry mandered in the Falkland Islands should be avoided. Its simply untrue and the information you added about demographics from it is largely incorrect. Its not homogenous as you claim, its ethnically diverse as noted in Origins of Falkland Islanders. The figures are there so why would you choose as a source a politically motivated tome and repeat claims motivated by political considerations as fact?
I have to say that I am hugely disappointed by your comments about the history section that I largely wrote. It was written in a neutral fashion, by a consensus that included yourself and to claim its misleading is quite simply untrue. Why would you say that? 192.35.35.40 (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC) (WCM)

Warning

Please see this. --Lecen (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you really have nothing better to do than chase me 'round the clock in Misplaced Pages? I get the sense that you hate me because I figured out your game here in the 'pedia. If that's the case, be aware that I have no other feeling but indifference towards you. I have no intention to serve as your conscience, and at this point no longer care what you do (or don't do) here. Please quit stalking me, please leave me alone.--MarshalN20 | 00:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)