User talk:Gaditano23

Please take this discussion to the talk page of the article. I will start a section shortly. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who has been here for 6-8 weeks, makes himself slightly ridiculous when he claims to know what is customary on terrorism articles and to imply another editor's behaviour is below par. All the major European terrorist events (certainly the majority) in the past 2-3 years include dead attackers in 'dead' figures (they are dead after all, and the column says 'deaths', not 'innocent deaths'). It is simply clearer to say 'XX (including YY perps) than 'AA (plus BB perps)'. I know less about non-European events.

I am extremely PROUD of the fact that I removed reference to an Islamist motive UNTIL sourced text declared it thus. WP is about verifiability, not your/my/Jimmy Wales' conviction of what is probably true. Any fool can say that an event is obviously Islamist (which many editors were saying), any reader can see that it may well be Islamist from the moment they hear about it, we only put it in the article as a TRUTH when we are able to say who/when/why it is deemed to be so. Anything less is guesswork at best.Pincrete (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete Apologies for the wording of my edit summary. You are right it was a bit over the top. I see now you were just being meticulous.Gaditano23 (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it isn't the case that 'perpetrator' deaths are always seperate from 'civilian victims', in fact it's probably more common to NOT seperate, such as this, but there is no firm policy, it is largely what is clearer and since the beginning it has been done that way on the Barcelona article, so your edit was OK, but maybe for the wrong reason. Pincrete (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3rd link doesn't workOptymystic (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Inactive user 20171, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Scolaire (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. That was a nice put-down of Wee Curry Monster on the SPI page, but you really ought to make a broader case, dealing with the evidence presented. I still find those edits of yours suspicious, but I wouldn't want to see an innocent person blocked because he failed to defend himself. Scolaire (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. have a nice day. CodeInconnu (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Pilar Bogado 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 real person or group of people, but it does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Comfycozybeds (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join invite to join the WikiProject Latin music, a WikiProject dedicated to improving articles related to music performed in Spanish, Portuguese and languages of Ibero-America. Simply click here to accept! Or, if you're interested in reading more on Latin music, you may want to check out the Latin music portal.

I've noticed your edits on articles regarding flamenco and interest in music from Spain and thought you might be interested. Erick (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you have removed opinion polls showing those "certain to vote", based on an alleged NPOV issue. This is data shown like this by opinion polls, so this is just reflecting what sources say. You say that it is NPOV because "the vast majority of those opposing independence actively boycott the referendum as called for by opposition". Well, I don't see what connection has this with showing what sources report. Those are just opinion polls showing these numbers. Excluding those because "the vast majority of those opposing independence actively boycott the referendum as called for by opposition" would constitute WP:SYNTH (and could also be NPOV, as you're bringing a lack of neutrality here on mere numbers reported by pollsters). We don't judge election polls based on whether they're right or wrong or whether what "may" people think based on a claim not related to the polls themselves. Impru20 (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Impru20 The idea is that if thee vast majority opposing independence say they are not going to vote, then information regarding the opinions of those who ARE going to vote is unnecessary or misleading, since it excludes one side. It gives a wrong idea of public opinion in Catalonia. If you want to leave it, this fact should be clearly mentioned.Gaditano23 (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These polls are put in a separate section, whose name is "certain to vote" (thus, pretty much unambiguous). Some of these polls don't show other data than these. Your suggestion is to entirely exclude those polls just because you "think" those are going to be unnecessary or misleading, which would be the true NPOV issue. Also, when you say "It gives a wrong idea of public opinion in Catalonia"... well, THIS is the public opinion in Catalonia as reported by opinion polls among those that were said to be certain to vote. Those could be right or wrong, but this is what sources say and it's not up to us to judge on whether they represent public opinion in Catalonia or not (mostly because we have no other means to evaluate public opinion). No more and no less is hinted in the section. Impru20 (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Impru20 I think you understand my argument. It is basically telling us what % of those who support independence support independence. Gaditano23 (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then bring sources connecting your claims to these opinion polls. Again, check WP:SYNTH. It's not up to us to re-interpret what sources say if those don't say it. Impru20 (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to us to decide what information is relevant to the subject at hand and to explain it accordingly where it is subject to misinterpretation. I think now it should be fine.Gaditano23 (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful adding personal accounts and claims of police did and did not do so and so and such and such. This could be construed as Original Research based on personal experiences which could be a conflict of interest. If you were in Barcelona during the 1st of October, please declare as such. I am not trying to out where you are living or your locations, but you are making out as if you were there through your edits and the information on you user page. It can be seen as unhelpful if you are not following the published sources, even if they go against your personal experiences. Please also bear in mind the issues with translations which occur, and bear un mind the issues being corrected such as syntax, grammar, and readability. Sport and politics (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sport and politics What edit are you referring to specifically? I was on holiday down south, not in Barcelona during the referendum but it was on Spanish TV all day and all of Spain (including myself) was watching. As a Spaniard I do have access to a wider range of sources though. I never edit based on personal experience (?!?!)Gaditano23 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use this page to talk instead, instead of your “own” talk page. Anchorvale (talk · contribs) 06:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC) Anchorvale (talk · contribs) 06:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of European cities by temperature is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of European cities by temperature until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Interstellarity T 🌟 19:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]