User talk:Nitsugagmx

Welcome!

Hello, Nitsugagmx, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tutorial to help get you oriented editing Wikipedia)
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! We're so glad you're here! Ogress _smash! 18:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Valencian

"is the language spoken in the Valencian Community" suggests that it is a separate language, which it isn't. Whether its *name* is accepted or not changes nothing about what it is: a variety of Catalan. Your wording suggests things that it is not and does not properly mention what it is. --JorisvS (talk) 02:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"is the language spoken in the Valencian Community" does not suggest that is a separate language. It states in which area this language is spoken.

If any reader is having that impression reading the sentence "Valencian belongs to the Western group of Catalan dialects" would clarify things. --Nitsugagmx (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does: "is the language" already suggests that. "Speech", "lect", "(speech) variety" would not. "It states in which area this language is spoken" again suggests that it is a separate language. The first lead sentence should define it properly. Mention of it being a variety of Catalan is part of a proper definition. --JorisvS (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about your observations and decided to use the Spanish entry of the article as reference in which to look for the solutions for our different concepts of accuracy in this term. It seems that similar ideas have been discussed there widely and profusely. --Nitsugagmx (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's far worse: makes nonsense and even more strongly suggests something it is not: a separate language. Moreover, articles are NOT about -nyms (names), but concepts. Valencian as a concept is a variety of Catalan. What POV are you trying to push? --JorisvS (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find anything that suggests that Valencian and Catalan are a separate Language in the text. I did not find any. If you could be more specific I would be grateful. Do you speak Valencian? Have you ever been in Valencia? My main point of view is trying to achieve a concept that could be accepted by everyone of the different sides of the Valencian Language controversies, trying to be respectful with every reasoned opinion, without completely ignoring one of them. I hope I could achieve that with your help. --Nitsugagmx (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that one view is rather myopic. It should be described, of course, but the main points of the article should not be rewritten to accomodate it. NPOV is not about trying to accomodate everyone's views or be respectful to biased opinion, but only to describe them in a way that is not undue. Removing the crucial element of Valencian being a variety of Catalan would be undue. --JorisvS (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you have said. That is precisely why instead of removing the fact that the valencian is a variety of the Catalan I expressed that in a way that both parts of the Valencian Language controversy could be satisfied and both sensibilities be respected. I would not dare to say that one point of view is more myopic than the other as that will immediately put me in one of the sides, something that I do not really want. --Nitsugagmx (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is like calling "Croatian" a language, something many Croats would like very much, even though when looking at the facts it is crystal-clear what it really is: a standardized variety of a single language that is most commonly called Serbo-Croatian, only marginally different from other standardized varieties of it. Trying to compulsively respect sensibilities would simply result in not telling the linguistic facts. The exact same thing would happen with Valencian. If one view has no basis in reality (here: Valencian as a separate language), the definition should not be rewritten to accomodate it. It should be mentioned only later. NPOV is not about respecting sensibilities or treat every view on equal footing regardless of the bigger picture, but to give them due weight in the article. Likewise, in the Earth article, we do not treat the flat-earth view on equal footing as the one that is based in reality. --JorisvS (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with everything you have said in your last comment. If you read carefully the entry you could check that it does not says that Valencian is a separate language. As I am a reasonable man I am open to suggestions of how to improve the article. --Nitsugagmx (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "Valencian language" is wholly inappropriate: Aside from that it suggests that it is a language, we even don't add that for full-fledged languages (e.g. English language) because it is the same term with a grammatically added specifier that may be removed if clear from context. The same goes for "idiom". Then you're talking about "glosonym" (which is "glossonym" in English), but articles aren't about -nyms (names or terms) and so the words "name", "term", or "-nym" should not be used in the first lead sentence. The last point is that "Catalan literature" is literature in the Catalan language, which means that Valencian literature is a part of it, which in turn is clarified by rephrasing it to use "Catalan literature"; moreover, "Valencian literature" redirects to Catalan literature anyway. Fixing these problems leads to exactly my version. --JorisvS (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It`s not a matter of adding anything. ¨Valencian language¨ and ¨Valencian idiom¨ are two of the most used ways in which the variety of Catalan that is spoken in the Valencian community is found. Once more, suggestions of ambiguity could be avoided by a complete reading of the article. I agree with you in the fact that "Catalan literature" is literature in the Catalan language, which means that Valencian literature is a part of it, but I hope you will agree with me that it would be more accurate to talk about ¨Valencian literature¨ as a shorter term than ¨Catalan language as expressed in its Valencian dialect¨. Also as the article is specifically called ¨Valencian¨ it would make sense to having a part talking about¨Valencian literature¨. Moreover, "Valencian literature" redirects to Catalan literature anyway. --Nitsugagmx (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, now you're not just implying that it is a language, but saying it outright ("is a Romance language"). "English language" is also a common way with which people refer to the English language, yet we do not add it to the lead of the article as an alternate term, because of the reason I explained above. You're saying you agree with what I say, yet you do the exact opposite. "Valencian literature" is shorter, but less clear for the first mention. Afterwards, using "Valencian literature" is quite fine. --JorisvS (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implying that the Valencian is not a language would be like implying that Catalan is not a language as both are the same language. It happens that the language spoken in the Valencian community and that is also spoken outside with other names is known as Valencian, Valencian language or Valencian idiom in its community, mainly as to avoid ambiguities with the ethnic group or nationality whose homeland is the Valencian Community. Maybe that is why there are different entries for ¨English Language¨ and ¨English People¨. I personally think that to change the title entry of the article ¨Valencian¨ to a new name like ¨Valencian language¨ may be too extreme, however to avoid the reference that it is known and found as ¨Valencian language¨ and ¨Valencian idiom¨ at all, without any reason could be detrimental. Maybe it could be more accurate to talk about regional language instead of Romance language? --Nitsugagmx (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implying that Valencian is a language is implying that it is distinct from Catalan. "Both are the same language": so we must say that without implying different things. My version does that, yours doesn't. Avoiding ambiguities is not an issue because we're saying that it is a variety of Catalan, something that cannot be done for the ethnic group or nationality, same way as we do not need to avoid ambiguities with the English people with the phrasing at English language. Note that there exists Valencian people analogous to English people. Like "is a Romance language", "is a regional language" implies, again, a separate language. --JorisvS (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm I am confused. How can someone imply or suggest that something is distinct if in the same sentence also says that it is not? --Nitsugagmx (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One can by first saying something that hints towards it being distinct and then saying it is not. The current status is that it says it is two things: A) a (distinct) Romance language and B) a term for Catalan in the Valencian community. A is plainly false, and B is also false because articles are about concepts and the concept "Valencian" is not a term. What is it you are trying to accomplish exactly? I haven't been able to get an answer to that yet. If I do I might be more able to do something with it. --JorisvS (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. According to my understanding the current status is that it says two things A)Valencian is the language spoken in the Valencian community and B) what outside the Valencian community is known as Catalan. If someone (apart from you) thinks that A) suggest or imply that Valencian is distinct from Catalan they can keep reading B) and realize it is not. Unfortunately a suggestion or a suspicion could not qualified as a fact if the suggestion or suspicion is invalidated immediately afterwards. What I am trying exactly to accomplish should be clear by now: to achieve a balanced, fair, accurate and not biased article. --Nitsugagmx (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It says "is a Romance language spoken in [...]", which means that there is a distinct language in [...], which is just not true. How is telling untruths and half-truths "balanced". What is supposed to be more balanced than in my version?? --JorisvS (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It says "is a Romance language spoken in [...]", which means "is a Romance language spoken in [...]". It could mean something different than that, but it does not. It could suggests something else? Maybe. It could suggest that it is a distinct language in [...]? I don't think so, but if the reader reads the whole sentence he or she will realize is not distinct. Obviously I guess that you really think that those untruths and half-truths do exist but, I do not know how to show you that they don't. Maybe checking with other readers? --Nitsugagmx (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it means what it says, but implicit in "a Romance language" is the boundaries between different Romance languages. There is no language boundary between Valencian and (the rest of) Catalan. "A Romance language" does not refer to a Romance variety that is mutually intelligible with other Romance varieties, but to a Romance variety unintelligible with other Romance varieties, regardless of the possibility of fuzzy boundaries. This does not apply to Valencian, and therefore it is untrue to refer to Valencian as "a Romance language". Catalan is a Romance language, and Valencian a variety of Catalan. --JorisvS (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let´s see it this way:

1) Valencian and Catalan are the same language.

2) Catalan is a Romance language.

3) Therefore Valencian is a Romance language.--Nitsugagmx (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The third one does not follow from the first two. From the first two it follows that Valencian is Romance because Catalan is Romance. However, to say that it is a Romance language adds an element of distinctiveness, which would contradict 1). --JorisvS (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The third one absolutely follows the other two. Maybe you will see it better like this:A(Valencian)B(Catalan)C(Romance Language)

1) A is B

2) B is C

3) Therefore A is C.

It is one of the most basic syllogisms. Syllogisms do not accept "elements of distinctiveness". Syllogisms accept one out of two options: A is B or A is not B. If you accept that A is B and B is C, there is no logical way that you could not accept that A is C. --Nitsugagmx (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, because now you're going for formal logic, I will too. Valencian and Catalan are part of the same language. The set called Catalan includes all members of the set (all varieties of that language), whereas the set called Valencian only includes a specific subset. Therefore, 1) is technically not correct, and which is why 3) can be false. I didn't go for the formal thing because I thought you'd get that. Correctly phrased it becomes: 1) Valencian is part of Catalan. --JorisvS (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do not use formal logic as you do not establish any deductive argument. Correct me if I am wrong but did you just write that Valencian and Catalan are not ¨technically¨ the same language? They are the same language or they are not the same language according to you?.--Nitsugagmx (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have understood what I've said at all. Take a set of dialects {A, B, C, D, E, F, G}. All these are part of Catalan. A few of these are Valencian, say {A, B}. This means that the set "Valencian" is part of the set "Catalan", and therefore that any dialect that is Valencian is Catalan, but not vice-versa. Just like all apples are fruits, but not all fruits apples. --JorisvS (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand every thing you said. An everything you mention here about the set of dialects is already explained in the rest of the article. Nevertheless it does not seem like something that you could put in the main definition of Valencian. We should keep in mind that the definition of Valencian should be accurate, truthful and respectful with the different sensibilities that come from the Catalan speakers and Valencian speakers in both the Catalan Community and the Valencian Community. The current definition does so by expressing the two facts that the mayority of both Academics and Scholars from the two areas, agreed on: Valencian is the language spoken in the Valencian Community and Valencian and Catalan are the same language. If it is possible to improve the current definition, while keeping the facts that Valencians and Catalans Academics and Scholars agreed on, it would be much more productive than try to focus our attention in anything else. --Nitsugagmx (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So because it is explained in the rest of the article we can/should be sloppy in the first lead sentence? Part of the problem is that "language" has multiple meanings: A) a speech variety mutually unintelligible with others, B) speech, CD..) other meanings. In "Valencian is the language spoken in the Valencian Community" meaning A) is nonsense, but that need not be obvious to the lay reader. Simply using "speech" is already better here. And sensibilities are not facts, so is not something to be "respected", only noted.--JorisvS (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course anyone can be disrespectful with both sensibilities or just one of them (biased). But why should we be disrespectful if we can avoid it?. You really highlighted something very important here when you wrote ¨"language" has multiple meanings¨. Maybe you see it as a problem, but why don`t we try to see it as a solution? Why should we constrain the limits of a word instead of celebrating that the word is polysemic. Why should we look for a synonym for "language" if "language" already fits, makes sense, solves every misunderstanding and does not create new ones?. --Nitsugagmx (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you could, okay, but so far the article has been worse off trying to "be respectful" to delusional sensitivities and I doubt that it is possible here. Using polysemy is not a "solution" in an encyclopedia, because the mission of an encyclopedia is to report the facts with clarity and precision with the goal to inform people. Polysemy is therefore only a problem, because it tends to make text less clear; it can actually only lead to misunderstanding. Here, using "language" quite easily leads to such misunderstanding. --JorisvS (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first words of the article are "This article is about the language variety. For other uses, see Valencian (disambiguation)." so none could be lead to the mentioned misunderstanding. --Nitsugagmx (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not part of the article, that's the hatnote. The article begins with "Valencian (...) is ...". Every individual sentence should not have the potential to mislead, especially in the lead. --JorisvS (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you?[1] --JorisvS (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't what? write something already written? That would not make sense.--Nitsugagmx (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't do what you said in your edit summary. --JorisvS (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, improving and discussing improvements in a reasonable way is a good idea. We did agreed in the improvement of mention the different ways in which Valencian could be found, as a better option than changing the article "Valencian" into "Valencian language", and we agreed that makes sense to talk about Valencian Literature in the article "Valencian" as the link anyway refers to Catalan literature. To undo agreed improvement would not make sense. --Nitsugagmx (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have totally misunderstood what I have said. I told you why adding "Valencian language" and "Valencian idiom" is pointless even if it were a separate language. I have also told you why in the first instance it is better to talk about "Catalan literature in Valencian" and not simply "Valencian literature". I have also told you why talking about "is the language of" or variations on that is no good. Fixing this leads to exactly my version. You have, nevertheless, not addressed this anymore. Instead, you are talking about "respecting sensibilities" and I have responded why that is unencyclopedic. --JorisvS (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You suggest that you prefer those synonyms to be erased and those improvements deleted but I did not find any reason given so far. I remember you writing ¨using "Valencian literature" is quite fine¨. We could really build up a better article, but we have to agreed on something and it has to be reasonable and convincing not only to you or me , but to anyone who reads the article. You talk about delusional andmyopic views that someone may have. Neither of us is interested in respecting any view like that. But I want to respect the view from the majority of scholars and academics from both Valencian and Catalan regions. Ignoring what both say or agreed on would be detrimental for achieving an accurate article. If you are not aware of which points of view are, you could read them in the Spanish wikipedia article ¨Valenciano¨. And if you don`t understand Spanish I could translate some parts of it if you want me to do it. --Nitsugagmx (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're not synonyms, but the same term with a grammatical addition that is misleading. If you are not interested in respecting a delusional view, why are you trying to incorporate one into the article?? The Spanish lead is just the same mess you're trying to make it; why would we copy other WPs' mess? It doesn't make the Spanish articles on those topics more accurate or better in another way just because Valencia is part of Spain. As for "Valencian literature", reread all the sentences I've written about it.

Now, we should say "Valencian is a variety of Catalan" because the vast majority of scholars and academics, and all linguists, say exactly that. There are a few non-linguists (so non-experts!) who hold that Valencian is a distinct language from Catalan. We should report exactly that. Considering the minor differences between Valencian and Catalonian Catalan, this is view is rather delusional, so we should not rephrase our definition of what Catalan is, especially considering that the only one who hold this view are non-experts. --JorisvS (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but to say that Valencian language , Valencian and Valencian idiom are not synonyms is not misleading, is plainly false and untrue. They are the different ways in you could find it, hear it, write it or express it. And not mentioning it would be detrimental and misleading. Maybe to change the article name ¨Valencian¨ for ¨Valencian language¨ as in ¨English Language¨ would be a solution.--Nitsugagmx (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But they are simply "Valencian" (the term in question) plus "language" or "idiom". The term in question is identical. Therefore, there is no point in mentioning these, just like there is no point in mentioning "English language" alongside "English". And this is aside from the point that "Valencian language" is misleading. The article's title does not make any difference to this. The article about the language called English is at "English language" because there is also "English people" and other articles with "English ...", not because the title "English" would not be good enough. --JorisvS (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those synonyms are the different ways in you could find it, hear it, write it or express it. And not mentioning it would be detrimental and misleading. They are not identical they are synonyms. You said there is no point in mentioning "English language" alongside "English", but then you contradict yourself by saying that the article about the language called English is at "English language" because there is also "English people" and other articles with "English ...". We could say exactly the same thing for Valencian. So if we apply the same standard we should rename the article to "Valencian language" so we could argue that the article about the language called Valencian is at "Valencian language" because there is also "Valencian people" ...["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valencia_(disambiguation)]. --Nitsugagmx (talk) 12:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was illustrating that whether or not the article is moved there, that has no bearing on whether those addition should be there: they should never be. It is a normal thing in English to see such words added, so adding them has no added value whatsoever. This is why they're not mentioned at English language and why they shouldn't be added at Valencian. --JorisvS (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are not added words. It's not something you add is something you find. They are synonyms and the different ways you could find it, hear it, write it or express it. And not mentioning it would be detrimental and misleading. They have been and they are commonly used as synonyms. --Nitsugagmx (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're not making any sense. --JorisvS (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remain silent. This issue has not been resolved. --JorisvS (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be specific. You think we could resolve it?. Maybe a third opinion would help?--Nitsugagmx (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having a third party could help. You're saying they're not added words, but you can't deny that "Valencian language" is "Valencian" with "language" appended, which means that the latter is logically an added word. That's also my point: they're not synonyms, but the same exact term with a specificier ("language" or "idiom") grammatically added. It is therefore not 'detrimental' or 'misleading' to not mention those in the lead, because it is simply a normal tendency of English to add them whenever it improves clarity: Any speaker of English with any brains can understand that those variations may occur. --JorisvS (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is an added word as it is "Valencian language" and not "Valencianlanguage". And of course they are synonyms as the words were added precisely to differentiate from the word "Valencian" that means exclusively "Valencian people". They are synonyms and the different ways you could find it, hear it, write it or express it. They have been and they are commonly used as synonyms and the fact that they are widely used in the Statute of Autonomy and by the Valencian Academy of the Language as well as by Valencian speakers should be enough to understand that not mentioning it would be detrimental and misleading. Clarity it is always desirable but not at the expense of being misleading. --Nitsugagmx (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On its own, "Valencian" can mean easily mean the speech as well as the people. Synonyms require the term to be different but mean the same. Here, the term is invariably "Valencian", with only an added word to clarify its meaning. As I said, any speaker of English with any brains knows that the longer versions can be found and what they mean without having to be told this, precisely because it is a common practice in English (as well as in many other languages, mind you). --JorisvS (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So are you suggesting to change the article "Valencian" to "Valencian language" in order to avoid ambiguity as in the articles "English people" and "English language"? do you know how to request a third opinion? . --Nitsugagmx (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2015

For additional opinions, there's WP:RFC. I'm not suggesting any move, though I'm not opposed to adding a disambiguator. That is a different discussion altogether, though, because the arguments for it are quite different. I'd prefer something different than "language", because it's not a distinct language, and so adding that would be misleading. Linguistically, the situation is not at all complex: Valencian is simply one of the dialects of the language that is most commonly called "Catalan" in English. Valencian people tend not like this term for their common language, because ethnically they are not Catalans in the narrow sense and people tend to believe that linguistic and ethnic denominations should match (even though they regularly don't). Linguistically, the article should be called Valencian dialect, analogous to Balearic dialect, whose speakers are not ethnic Catalans in its narrow sense either. --JorisvS (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too long, didn't read. I agree with Nitsugagmx that "the language" doesn't mean it's a distinct language, though Joris is right that people will read it that way without clarification. Since the clarification is in the next section, that could be a problem. Also, "glossonym" is inappropriate jargon for the lead. (I reverted mostly for that reason.) Nitsugagmx's latest version does read better, IMO. I just have those two concerns. — kwami (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

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/Nitsugagmx, 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.

Ogress _smash! 19:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Valencian, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You do not seem to be getting the message about how consensus works; I recommend you visit the Teahouse and stop edit warring. Ogress _smash! 18:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Valencian, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You are claiming to follow Kwami and consensus while reverting her most recent edits. Stop. Ogress _smash! 03:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Valencian. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Despite not breaking the "letter" of the law, you are without question edit warring on Valencian. If you don't stop, I'll have to get Admins involved and you will likely suffer a block. Ogress 17:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Antoni Gaudí. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Elizium23 (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Antoni Gaudí. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! Apparently you thought that I added a commentary, my own point of view, or my own personal analysis to the Antoni Gaudi Wikipedia article. Unfortunately that is not the case. I´ve just checked the nationality of Gaudi at the Encyclopædia Britannica and credited its entry as a source. If for some reason you think this is incorrect and you can contribute new sources that substantiate those assertions I would be more than happy to correct it. Nitsugagmx

April 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Reservoir Dogs, you may be blocked from editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about it. I thought it was common knowledge pretty much of what I mentioned. I will add some sources. Nitsugagmx (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Reservoir Dogs has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Almost the entirety of what you added was copy-pasted from the film's IMDb trivia. Please see Talk:Reservoir Dogs#Trivia copy-pasted from IMDb. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]