User talk:Mariano211
March 2023
[edit]
Hello, I'm Untamed1910. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Societat Civil Catalana, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Untamed1910 (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
April 2023
[edit]I reverted your last two edits on Societat Civil Catalana as it removed sourced content without reason and overstated the work from Calero et al, going against WP:UNDUE Wikipedia policy. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- I did not remove any sourced content (but the biased word 'flawed', which I could apply too to the reports I dislike) and the reason why I added the report of Mr Calero, both in EN and ES, is well explained under Talk. Mariano211 (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- The work from Calero et al (not only Calero) was already in the article. The word flawed is sourced from the peer reviewed work from Mariano Ruiz Espejo which analyzes the work from Calero et al and found flaws in it. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Then you must say that 'according to Mariano Ruiz Espejo the reports are flawed', and I would not object to that presentation. Otherwise you present opinions as facts, which is contrdictory to our previous discussions and the guidance offered by Wikipedia editors. I have never presented my sources as facts, I just quote them. And I have never discredited yours with the adjectives you use, not to mention your initial insults. If you do not want to understand this (the opinions you like are not facts/truth) we can go on like this for ages and we will spend our time reverting each other, which is not at all my intention. Mariano211 (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- I have replied on SCC talk page. I won't continue here. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Then you must say that 'according to Mariano Ruiz Espejo the reports are flawed', and I would not object to that presentation. Otherwise you present opinions as facts, which is contrdictory to our previous discussions and the guidance offered by Wikipedia editors. I have never presented my sources as facts, I just quote them. And I have never discredited yours with the adjectives you use, not to mention your initial insults. If you do not want to understand this (the opinions you like are not facts/truth) we can go on like this for ages and we will spend our time reverting each other, which is not at all my intention. Mariano211 (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- The work from Calero et al (not only Calero) was already in the article. The word flawed is sourced from the peer reviewed work from Mariano Ruiz Espejo which analyzes the work from Calero et al and found flaws in it. 95.17.250.138 (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)