User talk:Cloudaoc

To contact me, please write here to start a new discussion. Tambien pueden comunicarse conmigo en español

Independencia

You do realize that a ship is often both an armored frigate and broadside ironclad because the former term is a role, while the latter is more of a technical description?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but the term "broadside ironclad" is more appropiate for the Infobox, the first term can be used in the article itself. In fact, I´m currently gathering all the sources and documentation than I have to write a more extensive article about this Peruvian ironclad. Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Good, I'll look forward to seeing whatever you can put together. Hopefully Spanish-language sources have a complete history for her.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Great photo's of military vehicles.

Hi Cloudaoc, You have some great photo's of military vehicles. My i use some on the website i am an editor of? It is called www.military-vehicle-photos.com Regards, Alf The Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfvanbeem (talk • contribs) 19:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Of course you can use my pictures in your website! Just please make reference to my personal page of Wikipedia. Regards! --Cloudaoc (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

TARADITO

INDIO TARADO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjhcq (talk • contribs) 02:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

About the capture of the Huascar

Sir, I do not intend to point out that the ship surrendered. I just said that the flag ceased to be hoisted. That is why, at the end of the text, gave the interpretation of each country. I never wrote the crew surrendered, I wrote the flag ceased to be raised to me sounds neutral enough in relation to the difference of the two countries.

I personally believe in the Peruvian version of the fall of the flag, by the intense gunfire, the first time. but the second time I have doubts, especially the fact that some crew members, on deck, waved white handkerchiefs and why no attempt was refused boarding? because, according to the inventory of September 30, 1879, there was enough weaponry that was not used, and Chileans found in the ship after capture. I've even come to think of a partial surrender; deck crew surrendered (some even jumped into the sea and were rescued by the Blanco) while inside the ship, another part of the crew, tried to sink it.

On the other hand, as I read in relation to the capture of Rimac, by Peruvian sources, this transport not lowered their flag, they (the crew) hoisted a white one, that means ship negotiate delivery, but in the end it's just a technicality.

Greetings--LoboGuardian (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sir, the articles in Wikipedia are not made to please both Peruvian or Chilean readers, but to reflect the facts as they are, with a neutral description, which implies the absence of biased points-of-view and/or sources. And that's all.

It doesn't matter if you believe or not in the Peruvian account, the flag was take down by the gunfire twice, and that's all. We are not here to judge or adapt the facts to satisfy the readers POV, but only to sustain the true facts, as they are.

About the second fall of the flag, this time there no hoist or mast when this can be raised again, and the ship was captured without any opposition because the remaining crew still able to do something more than just bleed-off (almost all the crew was injured sir) was busy trying to scuttle the ship, opening the main engine condensator, because the Huascar did not have seacocks. No officer surrender its weapons, all of them dropped their swords and guns to the sea, nobody jumped of the ship, that's a false statement and I don't remember that line in any Chilean report of the battle, again, the remaining crew was busy trying to scuttle the ship, and moving the wounded to the main deck; there also no ammunition for its weapons, because the magazines were flooded or burning.

The hoist of a white flag is a effectively not a sign of surrender, but the commander of the ship and the calvary colonel on board surrender its weapons to the Commander Carvajal, and this is a clear sign of surrender.

Thanks for your interest and for your comprehension, i'll hope we can work together to improve the articles of the War of the Pacific as we do it in the Angamos article. Regards! -Cloudaoc (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:2011 Abdul Fatah Younis.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:2011 Abdul Fatah Younis.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Cloudaoc, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Cloudaoc/Sandbox2. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

NLA

The reference is in the article. I made the change after the article was published and sources corroborated the name change. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read the article and the only reference (Times of India), but this does not indicate the source of such affirmation, and AFAIK there is no other references to such affirmation. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

War of the Pacific: Defensive Alliance

Hello Cloudaoc, I read your comment in the article and would like to express my point of view on the matter. The sentence in question is not to determine whether we should post the "Peru/Bolivia point of view" or the "Chile point of view". These are things we know:

1. Chilean historiography assumes that the Peru-Bolivia mutual defense pact is aimed against Chile.
2. Peruvian/Bolivian historiography refutes the claim that the mutual defense pact was aimed against Chile.

I am not contesting either point of view. The point I am trying to uphold is that regardless of any POV, the historical record shows that Chile fought a defensive alliance of Peru and Bolivia. Hence, it's appropiate to include this in the introductory summary section. Meanwhile, the body of the article ("Background" and "Crisis" sections) are the appropiate places where the topic is further discussed. If you would like to take part in this discussion [1], it would be great if we stood on the same grounds. Thank you!--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For the several contributions done to improve Peru-related articles. MarshalN20 | Talk 20:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You deserve it for all the tireless contributions made to Peru related articles. I wish the Peru project would have a formal barnstar to award its contributors, but this one is a good temporary one until they do. Keep up the great work!--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Well, I don't have much more to say! Thanks again!--Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 02:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

stop UN-doing, im editing in good faith for this article

seriously there's nothing sinister about my edits, im just correcting the english and just mentioning who wrote what about the repaso. regrettably all the references about the repaso are from peruvian sources...therefore its imperative to point this out in order to protect the integrity of this article. You labelling my edits as vandelism is very obnoxious and makes me think you just want to protect a certain point of view. Since im not disputing the information or making any deletions my edits are justified, if you wish to go further with this be my guest--IggyAU (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Sir, you must understand than the War of the Pacific is a historic article, not an historiographic one, there is current a discussion about this issue in its talk page, you can't affirm than the repase was only an Peruvian-sided statement, because it was A FACT, its denial by many Chilean sources do not imply than the repase never happen. You must state your arguments in the talk page and just made the addition only when consensus has been achieved, not before. You have been warned before, and if you insist in this behavior, I will report you to the administrators. What do you think about me is irrelevant, and I would not tolerate any accusation or implication about my participation in Wikipedia, I have 6 years doing this sir, you are just joining, I suggest than you must understand the Wikipedia policies, and follow the procedure previously stated to made any contribution to the article. Greetings. --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 15:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Ian, thank you for trying to help Iggy understand the policies of Wikipedia, but at this time it would be best if you please give the matter a temporary rest and stop reverting his edits. I am telling you this so that you avoid falling for the 3RR. I have replied to him on the article, asking him to provide sources which support his position. If he continues disrupting the article, then I will notify the administrators (and there you will be able to state your position as well). But, once again, for the time being save yourself the trouble of getting into problems with the administrators. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As to Iggy, which I am sure will read this, your edits are not justified. Please use the article's talk page to justify your position.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 17:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: WoTP

Cloudaoc, don't reply to him. He's obviously WP:GAMING, and by bringing forth a series of "issues" he is trying to justify his tags on the article. He has already broken the WP:3RR rule in the article.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, but, that's all? Just do nothing? We can't contact an administrator to stop him from doing this? He isn't already broke enough Wikirules to be sanctioned? I really don't understand... --Ian (CloudAOC) | ^Talk 18:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If you fall for his game and start replying to his "issues", he will simply continue to push his POV on the matter. Yes, he can and will be sanctioned (I will make a 3RR report on him sometime today), what would be best is if you helped me with the 3RR report.

For example, could you please help me find the statement by Alexh where he mentions that Keysanger's listing of "issues" actually disrupts the talk page instead of discussing a point one-by-one? That is an important point made by the mediator, Alex.

Also, if you could find the consensus on the points he is again re-stating, that would help out as well.

At this time, the best thing we can do is use the WP rules to prevent Keysanger from disrupting the article. If we argue with him, that will only lead us to nothing. Just as he is gaming the system, we have to use the system's rules and punishments to get him to stop.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)