Gracias. Thank you for the attention. [[User:Guilherme Burn|Guilherme Burn]] ([[User talk:Guilherme Burn|talk]]) 00:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Gracias. Thank you for the attention. [[User:Guilherme Burn|Guilherme Burn]] ([[User talk:Guilherme Burn|talk]]) 00:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
:De nada. --[[User:Crystallizedcarbon|Crystallizedcarbon]] ([[User talk:Crystallizedcarbon#top|talk]]) 09:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
:De nada. --[[User:Crystallizedcarbon|Crystallizedcarbon]] ([[User talk:Crystallizedcarbon#top|talk]]) 09:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
== I did not make any changes apparently. ==
Hello there. I received your message regarding some changes I made. Apparently, I haven't made that change nor have I ever visited that page. It must be a mistake. Please do whatever you like. Just letting you know.
Revision as of 16:07, 5 March 2018
Please click here to leave me a message. I am happy to try to help and answer any questions. Please be civil here.
Please don't forget to sign your comments, either with this button on your menu: or by typing this code: --~~~~
I read previous comments about it. I think the Polish article can be a reliable source because the Polish CKM magazine is the original version. I am sure this article is reliable since I am from Poland. 77.112.90.244 (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Any open wikis including the Polish Wikipedia project can't be used directly as reliable sources as anyone can post the information. The sources in those articles can be used if they meet the requirements. I have found a source that seems reliable enough for that information, so I have added it to the article along with the reference. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hardtack edit?
Hello Crystallizedcarbon! I saw you left on my page a warning about vandalism on Hardtack, but i have not edited that page (nor have i heard of a hardtack!). I suspect its because im on a public IP, but thought i'd specify that as i am the most frequent user on this IP when im not logged in, or use this for grammar fixes (my main account is User:Bryan C. W.. Cheers nonetheless! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.190.46 (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Bryan C. W., someone has been using the same public IP that you use for repeated vandalism. An admin has blocked the IP for 31 hours to limit the damage, so you won't be able to edit with it. You should have no problem editing while logged to your account. I would recommend that whenever possible you edit using your username and not the IP to avoid any confusion. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Crystallizedcarbon, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
New Year Backlog Drive results:
We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!
General project update:
ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Behaviour in Catalan independence referendum
I bring this here because it does not belong to the talk page of the article, and applies to your attitude in that article, one that takes place out of your regular scope of your specialty of electronics as you describe on your page, i.e. downright politics. First of all, I have expressed my concern. Still you come back with all the noise, accusing me with petty COI (more noise). I do not expect you to be NPOV, I do not think I am myself, probably nobody is, but your edits are not NPOV, they seem to remove reactively what you consider to be hostile edits, POVwise (WP:BATTLEGROUND), or WP:CHERRYPICK ([1]). Some examples here, and here. Just removal of sourced information or content blanking; now that should be the last option. Keep it constructive, add the nuance necessary if something was wrong. You had actually a point that a part of the information sourced was not included in the source. But this article is nobody's courtyard.
Also long explanations and edit summaries bring confusion, and they may be held as disruptive. In case you do not understand that, I bring it here for you. Keep it short and quiet, detect the wrong information, and correct it if needed. Do not undertake sweeping removals, that comes across as confrontational, and will immediately raise red flags and suspicion. I hope this has been enlightening, and do not have to come back to the same. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Iñaki: Once again you choose to ignore simple facts. you have a userbox that indicates that you are against the policies of Mariano Rajoy with a ballot box that refers to the article in question. If you have such a strong bias you should at least make sure that your contributions there are not controversial and do improve the article. Yes I removed those edits because I considered them to be biased and without NPOV explaining the reasons in the edit summary. for the same reason I made this edit that another editor with views contrary to yours labeled as editing under POV for the opposite reasons. I also removed this text for similar reasons. I try to find consensus and if my explanations are long is because I think that it is better to center discussions on content and its merit to the article rather than just reverting with generic claims of WP:BATTLEGROUND. With most users that helps to reach consensus as I have achieved with other editors in the past in this an many other articles.
As far as the edit summaries this is what the help page you linked recommends:
Summarize. Summarize the change, even if only briefly; even a short summary is better than no summary.
Explain. Give reasons for the change, if you think other editors may be unclear as to why you made it. Citing the Wikipedia policies or guidelines that you feel justified the change may be incorporated into your explanation.
Abbreviations. Abbreviations should be used with care. They can be confusing for new contributors. For an explanation of some commonly used abbreviations, see this edit summary legend.
Expand on important information. Readers who see only the summary might not get the entire picture. Prevent misunderstanding: If an edit requires more explanation than will fit in the summary box, post a comment to the article's talk page to give more information, and include "see talk" or "see discussion page" in the edit summary.
I don't see where it says to keep it short and quiet, I interpret it to mean that we should explain the reasons for the change in a concise but complete way and expand in talk if necessary.
Once again, regarding the content, the statement you added should not be in the paragraph because it is not talking about misinformation it's talking about cyberatacks. It's unrelated and misleading as the source itself clearly stated that it was not talking about the alleged misinformation campaign, so why should it be used in a paragraph about misinformation?. I made a long explanation hoping you would be able to understand this simple concept, I hope I have not wasted my time again. Maybe I am missing something here, we both agreed it is sourced, but you have failed to provide any valid reason on why the information is relevant to the article since there was no claim of cyberattacks anywhere or why it is added in a paragraph about a different issue in a way that could lead to misinterpretation.
As regards the Help:Edit_summary, please read it and read the DOs and DONTs. I will try to be short for clearness. If an edit is explained long enough to be clarifying, it is good, adding what looks like self-entitling statements accompanied with content blanking, it does not look very collaborative, especially in a controversial article where your edits show no nuance (sourced content blanking), and invariably target one of the sides presented in this article (e.g. the examples provided above). I am not talking about you and your Spanish flags, I am talking about your edits, with diffs. In this case, if you had added "this information does not belong in this section" and remove it or, better, relocated it to the right place, would have reassured much more than your actual edit summary.
"Quiet" means smooth and constructive, not content blanking and fuzz. That looks confrontational and WP:BATTLEGROUND.
Your examples provided above on other articles, tell me nothing really, and I do not feel identified with "another editor with views contrary to yours labeled as", so I am clueless.
If verified information is not totally accurate, mend it, and point to the specific problems found, try to help. If you continue to see unresponsive edits by the editor in question, go to the page of the editor in question, point to and/or warn him on the formal problems you found, like "please do not add youtube, not permitted as reliable source", "it appears to be disruptive", or similar. If the problems continue, like not listening to your advise, undo or/and try to prevent the editor from disrupting. Iñaki LL (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Iñaki, I have to disagree with you. I explained why it did not belong in the section in a clear and concise manner making reference to our policies and without any personal atacks, that is better than just saying that it does not belong or citing WP:BATTLEGROUND as an argument. Removing recent edits made to the article that are not relevant or do not follow our policies (all made by the same WP:SPA user) is not content blanking, you mention two of the three edits made recently by Edgarmm81 who has made many biased edits and has contributed only to that article. You failed to notice that I did fix the reference of his third contribution. You also failed to notice that I myself tried to add a properly sourced statement about the Catalan politicians remanded into custody and how I argued for its inclusion at Talk:Catalan_independence_referendum,_2017/Archive_6#Remove/summarize_Aftermath_section. As far as the edit about the results it is easy to see it lacked NPOV as explained in the edit summary, even though the sum of the separatist forces retained their majority they lost two seats and their percentage of votes also fell to 47.8. I fail to see how you can call any of those edits blanking or cherrypicking (specially when I myself tried to add that information in the past). The examples I cited were to show you that I don't edit in just one side of this issue, and while the Spanish flag is not directly related to the article in question (it was in my userpage many years before this issue developed and it just shows my nationality), the statement in your user page is, so please, do center your arguments just in content and remember to asume good faith of other editors. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of Sexy Hot Award
Hi. Sorry, I don't speak english very well and I was starts to edit recently. Really the references are the award itself and the network of the channel. But exist a independent jury formed by directors and producers[2] that defines the winners for some categories and to other the winners is defines per audience votes on internet. Do you think this information can save the article?Guilherme Burn (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. I received your message regarding some changes I made. Apparently, I haven't made that change nor have I ever visited that page. It must be a mistake. Please do whatever you like. Just letting you know.
or by typing this code: --~~~~
or by typing this code: --~~~~
