User talk:Selecciones de la Vida

Cheers, I couldn't believe it when I found there was no article about him. I thought a stub would be better than nothing. All the best English peasant 19:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have seen you adding edits throughout this dispute I have been having and as you also seem to be a Chilean Australian, I am sure you wish this article to be the best it can be, just as I wish it to be. If you take the time to read all the drama that has been happening over this article between me and Kransky, you will soon realise that Kransky has been making major edits without understanding what he is doing. With all the involvement of the third parties it is slowly leaning towards the revision I am wishing it to be and not that of Kransky's. I hope we can all finally come up with a suitable revision to the article but look at my current revision and tell me what is wrong with it. As I don't feel it needs further changing. Salud TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

:Yes exactly, and you as a fellow Chileno are quite aware of this. I did some research and noticed you are the one who added the estimate from the embassy I am so passionately defending. And it is true even Gustavo Martin Montenegro is agreed upon this. The problem is if you have read my comments on the talkpage, is that the editors who are contributing their opinion on the matter don't completely understand all aspects of the argument. In particular Kransky, Matilda and AussieLegend. These three don't understand that the two sources do not conflict as they have not in the past or still not understand how the Australian Census works. And they all think that the source is provided by Nadine the intern and not the Chilean Embassy to Australia. I am glad I have you in there making mention of the exact same things I am telling them, as they all seem to have a block with me based on me as an editor and not the points I am making. Thanks for you involvement, TeePee-20.7 (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Nick Carle references. I knew I had read some articles saying he was Chilean at some point. Jared Wiltshire (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. What kind of fish contains a curanto (even a curanto a la olla)? I'm puzzled :D. Bye. Lin linao (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

:Hi. Thanks. The link is more strange... A curanto with sweet potato?? It is impossible its cultivation in southern Chile. But umu of Eastern Island has sweet potato, lamb and banana leaves. However, the "common" Chiloean (and Chilean) curanto it's no made with fish, nor lamb nor (never) sweet potato. Bye. Lin linao (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC) PS: Chilota form is in a hole or in a pot, but without cabbage or white wine.

Don't just quote policy and do the same edit again, come to talk and give your view. --AreaControl (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You have deleted a claim, with reliable sources, that was formed in the Bicycle kick article. Please do not do that again before completely reading the articles sited or setting up a discussion in my talk page or in the article's discussion. We've worked on similar articles in the past, but never have you done something such as this. Please do not do it again, especially after I've noticed a horrible intention of not allowing me to even revert back to what I originally wrote by doing side-by-side edits. Once again, if you have any complaints please comment it on my talk page or discuss it in the article. It's not easy to find sources, and it's not cool for you to delete my hard work.--MarshalN20 (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I would have liked to know. What sections infringed the Wikipedia rules? By deleting them you did not even let me know what I did wrong. I mean, I will post the information I did (trying to have it as good as the prior work), and please then tell me what exactly is wrong. FYI, Peruvian teams did play a series of tournaments in Chile, and they did beat all those Chilean teams, and all the 4 reliable sources explained such things.--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see what could be called personal research on the " Although the Peruvian claim lacks specific dates and names for its evidence, it gives a substantial amount of facts." That's supposed to be a summary of the first information as it indeed lacks specific dates and names, but it does give a good amount of facts (as the sources validating such facts show). Also, when people try to attack the Peruvian claim they often resort to stating the lack of specific dates and evidence for it, hence my reason for including that in there. Nonetheless, the part starting at the "legacy of the chalaca" is not original research. I'm gathering sources to prove it correct. As of now I only have the validity that Colombians also call it Chalaca, and I posted a verifiable link with an innner link to the Colombian who stated such a thing.--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The information that states, "in response," is an original research claim as nowhere in the article does it state that the FIFA delegate's opinion was given in response to Manuel Burga's statement. Moreover, and therefore, such a thing has nothing to do in the Peruvian claim. If you wish, add it in the Chilean claim section as it relates to that. I'm currently making another addition to the Peruvian section, so I might inadvertedly delete the statement if I see it in there again. Thanks.--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not in response to what Burga said, though. Both things are only related by the subject they discuss, but Burga and the FIFA official from Chile did not hold a conversation either privately or publicly. Unless you can find a source showing that the statement of the FIFA person was "in response" to Burga, such a thing does not have anything to do with the Peruvian article. If anything, you can post the same link for the Chilean section...Wikipedia does not sanction that...--MarshalN20 (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it by deleting the Argentina part. Do not erase the Peruvian tours in Chile, they are highly relevant to the article. If you disagree, discuss it in the article's main discussion page. If you erase it I'll be highly disappointed.--MarshalN20 (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Although there is no mention of the bicycle kick, it is rather obvious that he might as well have done at least one of the Chalacas while on his trip to Chile. During those times several clubs in South America sought to see the players, mainly the black players of Alianza, play against their teams. Villanueva's signature move was the Chalaca, and whether or not the article mentions it, the information serves as important evidence that it was the Peruvians that went to show their football skills in Chile and not the Chileans in Peru. In fact, one of the remaining ties of those years stands to this day between Colo-Colo and Alianza Lima, such as how Alianza often invites Colo-Colo to its celebrations, both teams often have helped each other in their hard times (economically, and when Alianza's airplane crashed and killed several key players of their team Colo-Colo was one of the first to offer aid in players and money). This is not about jumping into conclusions, it's about posting facts that will allow people that read them to develop their own conclusions. As long as my information relates to the subject and does not create its own conclusions, it is completely fair to use it in the article.--MarshalN20 (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If according to you it does not validate the claim, then why do you get all troubled up about it? It's not original research because I'm not coming up with anything I'm writing. I'm merely stating facts validated by a series of sources. This would be original research if I was making up my own conclusions. I'm not "just claiming" or "making up" that Peru has older sports institutions than Chile, it's a fact that many Peruvians and people that know about South American sports know. The sources do their job: They prove the statements as valid. I mean, as much as I'd love to provide my own "original research" of these things, I'm not really such a resourceful person. Also, the information provided about sports history is highly important in the Peruvian claim section as it further helps the reader understand the Peruvian claim. By simply quoting Jorge Barraza the reader only gets a folk tale that makes no sense. Therefore it is necessary for a small insertion of Peruvian sports history at that time be told. Furthermore, the tournamens held in Chile, Colombia, and Venezuela provide a background as to why these people call the move Chalaca. Seriously, leave nationalistic pride aside and let the encyclopedia contain what it needs.--MarshalN20 (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem to wish an analysis, let's go step by step on the "original research" that Wikipedia does not want.

1.This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas.

-The statement I include has a series of published facts from reliable sources (No blogs, no webs with biased opinions other than the opinions of newspaper articles). There is no unpublished argument or speculation in there as facts are shown in the form of mentioned quotes and citations. There is no personal idea as the information provided proves it's parallel to the work being cited.

2.to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

-The information is directly related to the topic called: Peruvian Claim. The reliable sources directly supports the information being presented. The small one-paragraph section further explains the history of football in Peru in order for readers to understand how Peru came about to having football and therefore why they currently claim to have bicycle kick. The football matches show the reader why the nation of Colombia calls the move Chalaca, why Jorge Barraza stated that the move was first allegedly called Chalaca in Chile, and the reason to present forth Alejandro Villanueva in the story. Without such information it simply includes an-uncyclopedic and rather idiotic statement about Alejandro Villanueva.

3. Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited.

-It is. Check all of them if you wish. The one with Alianza Lima that seems to have a "blank page" actually has white text. I can't blame them really. Education in Peru isn't that great, and they obviously serve to demonstrate it. If you're going to deny such a source because the lesser intellect of these people in creating a webpage, then you would seriously lose a large drop of respect from me.

4. "You are trying to state that because of a few club games between Chilean and Peruvian clubs after 1927 the year that David Arellano had died in Spain, the bicycle kick came about?"

-Not at all. Obviously Alejandro Villanueva did not create the move, even though some people have that idea. I see the problem as you drawing your own conclusions, and that you don't like that particular statement. Nonetheless, like I've been priorly stating, the information is meant to show why Colombia, Venezuela, and Ecuador could possibly ever have heard the term Chalaca. They certainly didn't invent the term themselves, and there's no source that states that validates that or the idea that the term spread by land. The information I added simply goes along with the source in stating that Peruvian teams played games in Colombia and Chile. None of the articles I read mentioned that the Peruvian clubs performed any Chalacas, therefore such a statement has never been provided for you to develop such an idea.

5. Passages open to interpretation should be precisely cited or avoided.

-The passages you interpreted differently were precisely cited. If you developed such a conclusion that either means three things: 1. The Chilean claim section is badly written and provides a lack of useful information (which in that case you should fix) that makes the Peruvian claim seem more factul. 2. You did not understand the section. The middle paragraphs, that which you constantly erase, link the past with the present. It would be wonderful if you could also do that for the Chilean article, then we'd be another step in making this a Featured Article (which you erasing my factual information certainly does not help). 3. *ZOMG* The Peruvians really did invent the bicycle kick during a trip in Chile...lol, I still don't understand how you could possibly imagine that. If you really take a look at what you're stating it really makes little sense.

6. This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources.

-Lol. I'm citing all things I'm writing with highly reliable sources. I'm not really adding my knowledge either, just simply including facts.

7. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

-Double lol. Yes, all the facts in my post can be verified.

8. This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia.

-Triple lol. Yes, I've only included information already published in other reliable sources.

9. If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

-Nope. My view point is not in the majority. It took me all my morning to write and reference everything you're erasing.

10. If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

-Nope. The people that know the things I'm posting about in Peru and Colombia, and their populations are far greather than that of people who would want to deny such things.

11. If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

-Yes. This is where the information falls. Among people, Jorge Barraza, Teofilo Cubillas, Manuel Burga. They're all pretty darn prominent. I also added plenty of sources.

12. Did my information at any point deny the existance of the Chilean claim?

-No. It only states the Peruvian claim, its past history, its linkage to modern history, and the current history. Yet, the constant editions by you destroy the linkage.

13. Does the Chilean section deny the existance of the Peruvian claim?

-I believe it does, very directly.

14. Tennis has no relevance to the subject matter yet you'd like to include that.

It's important to mention the age of the sports history in Peru. If that's all the problem you have I can easily edit that.

Other than that, by carefully analyzing the Wikipedia article on "No original research," I have not broken any of Wikipedia's rules. Oh, by the way, do you know if gale group is an acceptable source? I've found many more fun articles in there for the Peruvian claim.--MarshalN20 (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't take it personal, no eres el primero, but as the games are over, quizas ya sea el momento de quitar la referencia. I am sure consensus will be seek, and if you win, se quedara entonces.

Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you are engaged in a heated discussion in Talk:Bicycle kick with User talk:MarshalN20 and User talk:English peasant. I also see that things could get out of hand (there is also some name calling on the part of User talk:MarshalN20). I have left messages to the other two parties. May I suggest letting things cool down and maybe discussing it in FOOTY where there are many knowledgeable editors that can help? -- Alexf⁴² 19:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your addition to the football in Argentina article I've been working on. I was planning on adding words to that effect when I get around to writing the players subsection. I've got the layout written out on my desk, it's just finding the time and the reliable sources to add it all into the article. Regards EP 23:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi mate, perhaps you could respond to his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bicycle_kick&curid=2410408&diff=244021905&oldid=244009920 latest attempt to defend his insults], I don't know anything about your political opinions, but my wife assures me his comment could only have been intended as an insult. The guy is driving me up the wall, he wont address the issue I'm trying to discuss without trying to wind me up. It seems to be a good tactic because its drawing all the attention away from the conjecture I'm trying to point out. I'm on the verge of taking it to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution because I'm fairly sure that he is in the minority on the editorial issues and the vast majority of personal insults, snide comments, unfounded allegations and misrepresentations are coming from his direction. EP 00:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

:FYI, I have opened discussions at WP:FOOTBALL and WP:WIKIQUETTE. Feel free to contrible. EP 23:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ambox warning_pn.svg A tag has been placed on :Rubén Selman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{tl|hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. SimonD (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:Ambox warning_pn.svg A tag has been placed on :Enrique Osses requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{tl|hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. SimonD (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Selecciones.

Looking forward to working with you on more articles.

Likeminas (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

People requested me that map, why did you revert the orthographic projection map of Chile?. --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 00:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

:As you wish, never mind. I really don't care to be honest. Regards. --TownDown ^{How's it going?} 07:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

{{User:TownDown/Passage1}}

.--TownDown ^{How's it going?} 07:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello my friend how are you? I think we should move the Panamerican Championship to Copa America row.

Panamerican Championship is completely different from "Football at Pan American Games". First because it isn't played by adult teams, second because "Football at Pan American Games" is a competition that is part of the Pan American games that are disputed since 1951.

The Panamerican Championship is almost the same tournament as is today's Copa America (South America countries with some CONCACAFs countries). This tournament was played by adult selections, unlike the "Football at Pan American Games". What do you think? Thank's--Italodal (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Selecciones de la vida:

You said "it is not gramatically incorrect" about this sentence:

::It is one of two countries in South America that does not have border with Brazil

It is incorrect. Noun is plural, and the auxiliary verb is singular. At least it should read:

::It is one of two countries in South America that do not have border with brazil

I guess you speak Spanish. The first sentence reads when translated:

::Es uno de dos países de Sudamérica que no tiene' frontera con Brasil''

The second:

::Es uno de dos países de Sudamérica que no tienen frontera con Brasil

Besides, the definite article fits very suitable at the begining. "It is one of the two countries..."

My improvement of the sentence was not wrong at all.

::It is one of the two countries having no border with Brazil

Why did you remove it? What was wrong with this minor, but very useful, change? Why do yo keep removing improvements to the article? This article is not yours, so let us work on it too. Unless we are adding false, unverifiable or incorrect information, DO NOT REMOVE IT JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO.

Remember what Wikipedia reminds you when editing: "If you do not want your writing to be edited and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."

Please, consider what I am telling you now as a good will message from a wiki-mate. We just want to improve those articles we have interest in.

Best regardsUniversal001 (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

:Both of the examples you use are wrong.

It is one of two countries in South America that does not have border with Brazil

&

It is one of two countries in South America that do not have border with brazil

You are clearly missing the letter A. Please make sure you use suitable examples when wanting to drive a point home. Selecciones de la Vida (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Seleccionesdelavida: You obviously get the point I'm trying to make. I missed an "a", so what? That "a" isn't the subject we are talking about.

I read what you left in my Talk Page, and I agree with you, one case is not a case. Yeah, I give you that. You just reverted one time my contribution, and that's not an habit. And I certainly saw what you say about cieloestrellado doing away with many others' contributions. So, let's put an end to it. Let's discuss the subject on the discussion page of the article so others may see it that wa too. What do you say?

Universal001 (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The article has been massively edited leaving it with an unbalanced POV. More editors are needed in order to work things out. Your help would certainly be appreciated.

Likeminas (talk) 18:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to state that I just tried to stop the disrupting editing that was going on in the South American teams. As far as the teams you mention I didn't realize, that they had those tables with flags. I do would like to point out that there is a flaw with those tables,WP:FLAGBIO stats that "When a flag icon is used for the first time in a list or table, it needs to appear adjacent to its respective country (or province, etc.) name, as not all readers are familiar with all flags. Use of flag templates without country names is also an accessibility issue, as it can render information difficult for color blind readers to understand. In addition, flags can be hard to distinguish when reduced to icon size", this tables clearly fail to comply with that, also the flags appear in the column named year. Am not against the flags, but I do think this two issues should be resolve. Hopefully with the discussing that you open, things can improved. Regards--Bocafan76 (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

:Hi again, I do understand what you mean, I believe that maybe a column (Host), could be included it to the table. I know that there might be some opposition to that, but by having this column it would show how the host nations usually reached very far in the tournaments, specially in Copa America. Regards --Bocafan76 (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

30px Hello Selecciones de la Vida! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 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 {{PAGESINCATEGORY:All_unreferenced_BLPs}} article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{tl|unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. José Sulantay - {{findsources|José Sulantay}}
2. Yashir Pinto - {{findsources|Yashir Pinto}}
3. Gerardo Cortés - {{findsources|Gerardo Cortés}}

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, best wishes with all RfC and Wikiness aside if you are in the affected area.Cptnono (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "{{mono|reviewer}}" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm certain you're trying to help; but please add actual references to article, formatted in accordance with :WP:CITE, rather than pasting a Google Books search result with no actual information content into an article. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

:¡Gracias! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain what you are trying to accomplish with your recent edits of the Pisco article? I don't understand why you would delete references to the Concise Oxford Dictionary. Surely that should be considered a Reliable Source. It would also be very helpful if you would provide edit explanations when you make edits. The dictionary simply says that pisco is a white brandy made in Peru from muscat grapes, and that the word is derived from the name of a port in Peru. If you have better references that indicate otherwise, then please add them. Don't just delete properly sourced statements without explanation. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

:Thank you for the response on my talk page. Yes, it is clear that there are reliable sources that indicate that a product called Pisco is made in both Chile and Peru, and that the United States also officially recognizes "Pisco Chileno" (Chilean Pisco) as a protected name for a distinctive product of Chile. So I hope that the issue is now resolved. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fort_Lee,_New_Jersey&diff=469628470&oldid=468886824 your recent edit] to the article for Fort Lee, New Jersey. The fact that the source can't be linked any more does not make the information "unverifiable". The sentence cited in the reference still exists in the printed edition of USA Weekend, which can be verified in print or if other online access tools provide a link to that issue of the publication. There is justification if the link no longer works to tag it as a "dead link" or (as I did) to remove the link from the reference, but there was no justification for removing the entry in the article in its entirety based on a non-working link. Alansohn (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your recent changes, I have left a message for you at Talk:Pisco Sour. Please discuss prior to editing. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Warning: You may be engaging in an WP:EDITWAR, please avoid any further reverts on the page Pisco Sour or you may end up facing a block. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

:I am sorry Selecciones, but you have left me no other option but to report you to the 3RR board. Out of common courtesy, you can check the situation here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Selecciones_de_la_Vida_reported_by_User:MarshalN20_.28Result:_.29]. Please read the WP:BRD process to prevent any future problems.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

:Selecciones, instead of constantly reverting the article, why don't you please first try to discuss things on the talk page? As I wrote to you before, the Elliot Stubb story is false. Toro-Lira, University of Cuyo, and the Chilean historian are reliable sources which demonstrate the Stubb tale was refering to the Whiskey Sour (not Pisco Sour).

:The "Pisco" drink itself is a debate which I don't plan to get involved in; but that has very little to do with this article about the cocktail Pisco Sour. Per WP:WEIGHT, the history and origin of the cocktail go to VV Morris in Peru. The article is also presenting the nationality dispute per the sources. Nothing is being hidden, and the article is thus following the WP:NPOV.

:We should not let nationalism cloud our minds. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Pisco Sour know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 15, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director {{user|Raul654}} or one of his delegates ({{user|Dabomb87}}, {{user|Gimmetoo}}, and {{user|Bencherlite}}), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 15, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

File:Pisco sour 20100613b.JPG

A Pisco Sour is a cocktail typical of South American cuisine. The drink's name is a combination of the word pisco, which is its base liquor, and the term sour, in reference to sour citrus juice and sweetener components. Chile and Peru both claim the Pisco Sour as their national drink, and each asserts exclusive ownership of both pisco and the cocktail. The Peruvian Pisco Sour uses Peruvian pisco as the base liquor and adds Key lime (or lemon) juice, syrup, ice, egg white, and Angostura bitters. The Chilean version is similar, but uses Chilean pisco, Pica lemon, and excludes the bitters and egg white. The cocktail was invented by Victor Vaughn Morris, an American bartender working in Peru in the early 1920s. In Chile, the invention of the drink is attributed to Elliot Stubb, an English ship steward, in a bar in the port city of Iquique in 1872, although the source for this attributed the invention of whiskey sour to Stubb, not Pisco Sour. The two kinds of pisco and the two variations in the style of preparing the Pisco Sour are distinct in both production and taste, and the Pisco Sour has become a significant and oft-debated topic of Latin American popular culture. {{TFAFULL|Pisco Sour}}

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

{{clear}}

{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Selecciones de la Vida. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

{{Ivmbox|Hello, Selecciones de la Vida. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Marcelo Bielsa, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from [https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/bielsa-still-mad-about-the-game-571108 this article], and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The edits in question were on {{diff|Marcelo Bielsa|287662246|280670022|3 May 2009}}. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Marcelo Bielsa and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Marcelo Bielsa, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Marcelo Bielsa. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Marcelo Bielsa with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [{{fullurl:Talk:Marcelo Bielsa/Temp|action=edit&preload=Template:Copyvio/preload}} this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Marcelo Bielsa saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! 2001:BB6:4708:9258:6CF9:7E09:5143:6CC9 (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Carlos Chandía has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hack (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)