Talk:Miriam Tey

Polls
I added quotes from CEO polls. They don't match Miriam's claims. Anybody has any clue regarding what polls did she refer to? Filiprino (talk) 02:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Biography
--Manlorsen (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Changes:

The sentence "where she fell in love with editor Miquel Alzueta" does not have any source and taking into account the policy of the notice about sources that I reproduce here below, I propose to delete this sentence.
 * 1) Numbered list item

The following sentence:
 * 1) Numbered list item

"She is a friend of journalist Pedro J. Ramírez and fashion designer Ágatha Ruiz de la Prada.[2]"

was also deleted because it has only a source based on tabloid journalism ( diario de Cordoba is not even a journal of the region where she lives), which does not follow the policy of the notice about sources (see above).


 * 1) Numbered list item

The sentence: "This new institution received support by prominent Catalans such as philosopher Victoria Camps and writers Félix de Azúa, Javier Cercas, Laura Freixas, Juan Goytisolo and Juan Marsé. Its president is Teresa Freixes, chair for constitutional law at the UAB.[3]"

was changed to:

"This new institution was presented by Francesc de Carreras, Félix Ovejero, Ignacio Vidal-Folch and Manuel Cruz and received support by prominent Catalans intellectuals. Its president is Teresa Freixes, chair for constitutional law at the UAB.[3]"

--Manlorsen (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your edits.
 * You did not even try to find sources for that information (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=Miriam+Tey+Miquel+Alzueta). Instead you took a destructive approach by removing content.
 * The reference you removed is not sensationalist at all, it is not tabloid journalism.
 * You have added a link to the CLAC as a source, which can be considered spam (WP:SPAM). There was already a source not belonging to CLAC, giving insight in what is CLAC and its members. The link to CLAC as source might be acceptable if there was not any other source to state the founders and members of CLAC. Moreover, the link you provided already figures as an external link. On top of that you have replaced English Wikipedia wikilinks of some supporters with Spanish Wikipedia wikilinks of some members. That is, you have removed information, not added information. Filiprino (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

--Manlorsen (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC) I have the impression that it is a little difficult to discuss with you. It does not matter what I try to change it is always wrong. In w this way I think it is very difficult to improve an article. I found the article as you want to write it in general good but there are things like "falling in love of someone" that can never be proved and are not relevant.
 * About the first point:

"Later-on she worked for the publishing house Columna Edicions where she fell in love with editor Miquel Alzueta.[1][2][3]"

I think the first part is relevant and it is true. The second part can be true I dont know but it is not relevant and if you check the sources you give in one of them it is written that she even married Miquel Alzueta, that would be in my oppinion more relevant if there were more sources to check that. If you find more sources about the marriage I could accept to leave it but at the moment there is a contradiction. Can we ask another editor if this information is important?


 * About the second point:

"She is a friend of journalist Pedro J. Ramírez and fashion designer Ágatha Ruiz de la Prada.[2]"

I still think that it is not relevant and the source is no relevant, how to check if it is correct? Dont forget that it is very easy to create a source in internet but it is much more difficult to demostrate that something is true or false. What does it mean to be a friend, to be a good friend or just to know the person? In my oppinion if they made something together (i.e. founded a company) or something more relevant, I would agree but to be a friend it is something that has to be specified more. Therefore I think it is better not to write it.


 * About the third point:

The reference I brought http://lawebdeclac.com/clac-quienes-somos/

is the website of the organisation CLAC where you can see the founders of the organisation and the collaborators. This is the information you wanted to put and therefore is the citation important. I deleted some names because they were not founders of CLAC and therefore I put "received support by prominent Catalans intellectuals" but I agree if you want to name all supporters. To be fair I would try to make a distinction between founders and supporters as referenced in the two sources

--Manlorsen (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your edits because again you removed content. Do not remove content which is well sourced. Also, for your note, I have not written this article at all. The consensus in this article is in how it is written like now. Your edits are violating WP:STATUSQUO and WP:CONSENSUS. And beware of not violating WP:NOFORUM both in the article and in the talk page.
 * This is not about what you find relevant or not. I[]
 * The relevance is there because it has a source. Everything can be put in a Wikipedia article as far as it has a reliable source (WP:RS), and this article is using reliable sources (WP:RS).
 * That link is already in the section "External links", as I already said. If you want to explicitly name the founders of the CLAC, you can do so, I don't have a problem with that. But the supporters can also be annotated, as it is well sourced, the same as the founders. Both are in the same source, there is no need to add the external link as a source.
 * I will keep reverting your edits until you stop removing content and sources from the article. I won't discuss your edits on this article with you anymore unless you fix your behaviour according to WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:STATUSQUO and WP:NOFORUM.
 * Filiprino (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

--Manlorsen (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Dear Filiprino I proposed above my changes in order to be discussed as described in [] and I remind you of the several warnings you received in your talk [] because of missing consensus and participate in edition wars. I hope that it will better here. We are discussing here about things that in my oppinion are not relevant for a serious biography in wikipedia but I would like to have a third oppinion for the case I am wrong. I will not make more changes to see if there are other oppinions but I dont think the three open issues are correct and I refer still to my two open comments above because:
 * About the first point "falling in love" I dont think it is relevant here this aspect specially if there is no consensus about it and about whether in fact it was a "marriage" or just a "falling in love". As long as it is not clarified I would delete it. I think it is better not to publish things that are consensed with the reality.


 * About the second point. I dont think it is relevant if she is friend of these two persons. If you put good friends in this case yes but to be friend of someone it is very general, it can mean to know a person or to be a good friend.
 * Concerning the point of the members of CLAC I dont care where you want to put the references at the end or where you speak about the founders of CLAC. I think the difference between founders and sympathizers has to be pointed out.

Thanks--Manlorsen (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi all, offering third opinion.

1. I would argue that the passage could be written in a more encyclopedic tone. The current passage says:
 * There she got to know and then was married to editor Claudio López Lamadrid, the father of her only son Jacobo. She continued her studies in Cambridge und in Montpellier. Later-on she worked for the publishing house Columna Edicions where she fell in love with editor Miquel Alzueta.[1][2][3]

I would rewrite as:
 * There she met Claudio López Lamadrid, whom she would later marry. They have one son together, Jacobo. She continued her studies in Cambridge and Montpellier (this sentence needs a time frame). In (year) she began working for Columna Edicions, where she met her next husband(?), editor Miquel Alzueta.

2. I don’t understand what this is referring to. Please clarify and include passages if you can.

3. This would be relevant in the CLAC article but I would argue that the list of founders and/or supporters is irrelevant and undue in this article.

Additionally, I wanted to politely ask editors in this article to check your spelling and grammar, as there are a few minor mistakes in the article. I understand English may be a second language; if this is the case, I commend you for helping with the English wiki. Adelante :) †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk  15:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

--Manlorsen (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Dear Basilosauridae I thank you for your comments and your oppinion.

1 I find your proposal good the only problem is that I know in the meantime that Miriam Tey and Miquel Alzueta were never married. Therefore I propose a slight variation about your proposal: There she met Claudio López Lamadrid, whom she would later marry. They have one son together, Jacobo. She continued her studies in Cambridge and Montpellier (this sentence needs a time frame). In (year) she began working for Columna Edicions, where she met the editor Miquel Alzueta.

2 you asked about the second point. This second point is about the sentence: "She is a friend of journalist Pedro J. Ramírez and fashion designer Ágatha Ruiz de la Prada.[2]" My point was that to be a friend of someone can be to be very good friends or just to know the person. Therefore I think this sentence is not relevant unless they are good friends or something. As we don't know it and the references are in my oppinion not so good I think it is better not to put somethin like that.

3 I agree with Basilosauridae about the third point and I dont think that to write all the names is so relevant and in my oppinion it should be enough to put the references and the people can check itthe names in the reference if they are interested. I proposed only a change here because in the current version there were people listed and case we list the people we should show mainly the founders, because they are more relevant and if we want also the supporter but not mixture of boths like it is now.

Dear Filiprino do you agree with these changes of point 1 and 3 that are a kind of compromise? Basilosauridae could you please give your oppinion about point 2? Thanks! --Manlorsen (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, I understand point 2. I would agree that what is currently written lacks context. If there is notability to their friendship (such as collaborative or working relationship) then that should be explained, but if not I would agree that it shouldn't be included in the article. †Basilosauridae  ❯❯❯Talk  01:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As I said, I don't care about the wording, as the current one does not convey false information. If you want to give it a more "encyclopedic" writing I like the one you provided. What you "know" is not a valid source (WP:RS). Sources state she started a romance with Miquel Alzueta and that she got married with him. You already tried to whitewash Societat Civil Catalana by blanking full article sections, such as in this diff, in which you also stated that you are a representative of Societat Civil Catalana, an organisation which Miriam Tey is a member of. I don't know what negative connotation can bring her marriage with Miquel Alzueta, but it seems to be negative for you.
 * I think her friendships are acceptable or relevant to be included in the article. The original source which mentions her friendship with Pedro J. Ramírez is from El Periódico: . The current source is a full copy of that text. Again, I don't understand what negative aspects can bring her friendships.
 * The list of supporters helps in the relevance matter, avoiding a trivial statement on CLAC foundation. Removing supporters and adding founders is unacceptable. Modifying the original well sourced article and removing sources is unacceptable. Using as sources external links already in the article is absurd. Again, I don't understand what negative connotations bring a list of supporters to need to replace them by a list of founders instead of just adding the list of founders to the list of supporters. Filiprino (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

1 I agree with you Filiprino that what I "know" is not a source but to write something in wikipedia without good sources is in my oppinion much worse []. I dont think wikipedia is the place to speak about the feelings of the people like to fall in love with someone. I would try not to write something just because there is a source that says it is true specially taking into account how difficult is to show that someone fell in love with someone else. I would be more carefull and prefer not to write anything until the source are strong enough. The assumption that she was married can be found only in one source. The assumption that she fell in love with this person can be found in two sources but these two sources write with exactly the same wording that I would say it is the same source and to "fall in love" is something so subjective to the person that in my oppinion one source is not enough, how do you want to proof that? We are speaking about feelings. Filiprino is there an official biography of one of the two persons where this information can be found? I did not find any source about this marriage. Therefore I propose either to delete this sentence or to write "In (year) she began working for Columna Edicions, where she met her next husband(?), editor Miquel Alzueta". That is an alternative proposal to my original one, Filiprino if you don't agree could you please make an alternative proposal? Important is to find also the year otherwise is again this source not reliable. Please Filiprino go to the matter of the discussion and not to the personal arguments. I am only interested here in the facts we write in wikipedia and I am not trying to whitewash anything. 2 I start with the same sentence before. It is not about the negative aspects or consequences about the friendship with P. Ramirez and wife. It goes about the information "to be friends". I repeat to be friends can mean a lot of things from to know each other until to be good friends therefore if the sentence is not more specific, it does not bring anything. I agree with Basilosauridae to delete this part. [User:Filiprino|Filiprino]] why is it for you so important to write this information that it is not relevant? Maybe they know each other at a party an evening and that is all or maybe they build a deep relationship, how do you know what is it true. Could you Filiprino please here also propose an alternative suggestion to the one it is written now?

3 Filiprino I could agree in this third point, could you please make a suggestion in words? thanks I agree with you that English can be improved in the article.--Manlorsen (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Filiprino, I would like to know what is your oppinion about our suggestion one week ago. Could you please tell me if you are going to discuss the suggestions of Basilosauridae and of Manlorsen? Thanks--88.10.58.130 --Manlorsen (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC) 17:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

As I did not obtain any other alternativ formulation of Filiprino I will change the actual version to one that is agreed also with Basilosauridae who provided a third oppinion in this article. I made the following changes:

1 The sentence " Later-on she worked for the publishing house Columna Edicions where she fell in love with editor Miquel Alzueta." is not relevant for a professional biography and could be changed to "Later-on she worked for the publishing house Columna Edicions where she met the editor Miquel Alzueta." but I would prefer to delete it because it is not relevant if someone fell in love with someone else and it can not be demostrated. The first reference is not relevant because Miriam Tey was not married with Mr. Alzueta. This can be checked in the civil register. The second reference is not relevant as it is tabloid journalism and not to be used as stated in wikipedia:

'''Notice about sources This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. See more information on sources.

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page. ''' The third reference is not valid as it is an article that describes the biography of other persons and is not focused on Miriam Tey.

2 the sentence "She is a friend of journalist Pedro J. Ramírez and fashion designer Ágatha Ruiz de la Prada." was deleted as it is not relevant to her professional life and it is based on tabloid journalism please see the notice above.

3 I agree with the third oppinion of Basilosauridae and the list of names is not relevant in the biography of Miriam Tey. This list can be included in the entry of CLAC. The sentence "This new institution received support by prominent Catalans such as philosopher Victoria Camps and writers Félix de Azúa, Javier Cercas, Laura Freixas, Juan Goytisolo and Juan Marsé." was accordingly deleted.

I kindly ask the editors in this article to debate this new version with relevant sources [] --Manlorsen (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I am waiting for the discussion with editor E380f876. I would kindly appreciate to discuss all the issues written in the last lines. The changes are explained above and before new changes are made, the suggestions have to be discussed. I would like to point out here that the changes proposed above are not based on own assumptions, but there were discussed with a third oppinion person Basilosauridae, previous not well sourced or irrelevant assumptions were deleted after an consensus was found with the participants --Manlorsen (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the edits and edit proposals of, , , , , and. I don't agree with edit proposals of. The article as is left by Manlorsen removes information which as I have been reading Wikipedia policy, goes against WP:RS. On top of that, Manlorsen attitude is doing WP:EW, violating WP:3RR. Looking at Manlorsen talk page, I have seen also the concept of Conflict of Interest, which by Manlorsen history, seems to be true as he said he is a member of Societat Civil Catalana, which Miriam Tey is a member of. As things stand by, Manlorsen is the only editor wanting to remove contents he thinks are false, but it is sourced by WP:RS. I am new here and I find the original article quite good, except some minor wording which could be improved. Now, reading this talk page, I know beforehand that Manlorsen will go into a banter against me with a WP:TEXTWALL. To me, Manlorsen is violating WP:NOTHERE too. But that is something administrators should judge, the same as the policy WP:SPA. Manlorsen history shows he is contributing only to this page and is full of edit warring of this article and Societat Civil Catalana. I bring this to the table to know whether if some measure should be taken because if I am going to edit articles and users like Manlorsen are going to edit war constantly, then it is not a rewarding experience and I retire from editing Wikipedia. That's why I am not editing the article as agreed by the previous users (minus Manlorsen). E380f876 (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I dont want to enter in discussions with you E380f876 that go to the personal level but I would like to call the attention of the administrators of this behaviour.


 * We are here to discuss the contain of the article and not to disqualify the people working here. If you think that my suggestions are not good, I kindly ask you to discuss the three point (marked each time with 1, 2 and 3 above) that I discussed before during more than one month. I asked for a third opinion [] of Basilosauridae, who supported my suggestions. My suggestions and also the discussions are detailled described above. I am not making WP:EW WP:3RR since I am asking before changing the current edition and I am looking for discusssions what can be checked in the talk page. I think also that I followed the policy of WP:RS specially because in this case it goes about a biography and the sources have to be cross checked to avoid tabloid journalism:


 * '''Notice about sources
 * This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. See more information on sources.


 * Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page.

'''
 * I kindly ask you E380f876 to discuss the points 1, 2 and 3 that I mentioned above, thx
 * --Manlorsen (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Basilosauridae did not agree with you at any time :-S E380f876 (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read the entries of Basilosauridae about points 1, 2 and 3:


 * 1. I would argue that the passage could be written in a more encyclopedic tone. The current passage says:


 * There she got to know and then was married to editor Claudio López Lamadrid, the father of her only son Jacobo. She continued her studies in Cambridge und in Montpellier. Later-on she worked for the publishing house Columna Edicions where she fell in love with editor Miquel Alzueta.[1][2][3]
 * I would rewrite as:


 * There she met Claudio López Lamadrid, whom she would later marry. They have one son together, Jacobo. She continued her studies in Cambridge and Montpellier (this sentence needs a time frame). In (year) she began working for Columna Edicions, where she met her next husband(?), editor Miquel Alzueta.
 * 3. This would be relevant in the CLAC article but I would argue that the list of founders and/or supporters is irrelevant and undue in this article.


 * Ah ok, I understand point 2. I would agree that what is currently written lacks context. If there is notability to their friendship (such as collaborative or working relationship) then that should be explained, but if not I would agree that it shouldn't be included in the article. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 01:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * --Manlorsen (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not agreeing with you. He proposed a change you did not apply (point 1). Instead, you removed that content. That is what you have been doing, disruptive editing. Even on point 2 he does not agree with you. He conditions his agreement to the existance of context. Many other users considered there's context for that :S I would recommend you some reading comprehension lectures and logic. I might not have much experience in Wikipedia but I know about logical fallacies and I can understand English language. E380f876 (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In the point 1 Basilosauridae agreed that "fell in love" is not very clear and he proposed something more clear like married. At the moment there are two sources (1 and 2) in one you can read that she fell in love with Mr. Alzueta in the other that she married him. If married were true, both should say the same because to be married is much more relevant and measurable than to "fall in love", dont you think? I think the problem is that we dont have enough sources to fundament this conclussion that she was married with Mr. Alzueta, do you have other sources? we are speaking about the biography of a person and for that we need more sources. Concerning point 2 Basilosauridae wrote "If there is notability to their friendship (such as collaborative or working relationship) then that should be explained, but if not I would agree that it shouldn't be included in the article" what I agree fully. Friendship is only important if this frindship is relevant for her biography and that cannot be demostrated at the moment. --Manlorsen (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Don't you see it? He did not agree with you. He did propose to put married, not friends. We have four sources: one says she started a relation. The other one states she married. Pilar Rahola states «compañera sentimental». And this one  states she fell in love. So, we have four sources in total establishing a relationship between Alzueta and Tey. Yet, you decided to remove all statement of that. About point 2, he was not talking about whether she is friend or not, but if the friendship is relevant. Another point in which he did not agree with you. Because relevance of a friendship is something subjective. He did not mind, which does not mean he agrees with you. E380f876 (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should be carefull with this entry in order to respect the wikipedia policy [] I asked here if it is relevant an information about an affair of a person who is known as editor or as a member of different organisations but not because of the affairs. Furthermore I wonder if the sources used for this affirmation are reliable. For example I dont think that the article of Pilar Rahola is a good source. This person is known for many controversies in TV and in tabloid journalism. You could create thousands sources that say that they both had an affair and still be false. How do you proof it and above all is it relevant that they had an affair?--Manlorsen (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully, this article is a mess and this argument is a mess. Later today I am going to re-write this article (retaining the content), because there are many major grammatical and Wikipedia-related errors. When I'm done, I will provide a summary of what I changed and why on the talk page. After that, we can continue to discuss if there are still disagreements. To be honest, I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what you guys are even arguing about at this point. †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk  21:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree this is a mess. I've struck the specific phrase about a relationship as a BLP issue; my Spanish isn't good enough to evaluate the sources.  I'm not sure it is relevant to be included in this article (as a BLP issue) even if it is verifiable. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 00:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Post re-write notes
First and foremost, as the banner at the top of the page states: this page must comply with WP:BLP. As editors of this page, you MUST be familiar with this policy, as well as WP:RS. It is not optional. Relevant quotes from WP:BLP: That being said, here is what I changed: Let's discuss. †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk  04:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."
 * "Exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources."
 * "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement."
 * "Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced.""
 * Removed references Si, tengo novio, con luz y taquigrafos by Angeles Gonzalez-Rinde and El aquelarre de Míriam Tey by Pilar Rohola for not passing BLP's standards for reliable sources.
 * Deleted information about where and when she met husbands based on BLP. The question is “is this information relevant to their notability?” I would say no. Information on number of children and father still included.
 * Removed content that was sourced from Sociedad Civil Catalana’s website.
 * Reduced info about CLAC. WP:UNDUE in this article. Would belong in an article about CLAC if we had one.
 * “In may 2016, Tey de Salvador counteracted a mise-en-scène of Carles Puigdemont at Chatham House in London where the Catalan president was seeking foreign support. She found it shocking that Puigdemont requested international support to break the laws of his home country and accused him to disrespect the majority of the voters at the Catalan regional election when the JxSí lost nine seats.” deleted because citation doesn’t pass standards of BLP. I also can’t make heads or tails of what is going on here. If you want to add it back, please find an appropriate citation and make clear what is being said.
 * Moved article to Miriam Tey. Only one source refers to her as Miriam Tey de Salvador, the rest use just Tey. Wikipedia’s article on Societat Civil Catalana refers to her as Miriam Tey.
 * Reduced section on her views on separatism. They are sourced from one think-piece that she wrote. I would argue the length was WP:UNDUE, so I made it more concise. I support the inclusion of more of her views in the future, but they need to come from additional sources.
 * Removed information about El Hijo de la Africana. Tey is a writer and publisher, so its not surprising she’s written prologues. Wikipedia doesn’t publish trivia lacking context, and I would argue she’s written and contributed to many works, so specifically calling out this example is undue.
 * Removed all information about her education. I was not able to locate the supporting citations. If I missed it, please let me know and we’ll restore it.
 * Lots and lots of red links. Bugged me, but if you really want all those red links, I don't care that much. I'm not sure what official wikipedia policy says about this.
 * Publishing houses made not italic. There was lots of inconsistency. If someone can provide proof that they should be italic in the English language, we can re-do it. Pretty sure its not italic with capitalization.
 * Improved encyclopedic tone and grammar.


 * I have changed "With Societat Civil Catalana, Tey worked to convince Manuel Valls to campaign in Spain's 2019 local elections as a Citizens candidate" to "With Societat Civil Catalana and Josep Ramon Bosch, Tey worked to convince Manuel Valls to campaign in Spain's 2019 local elections as a Citizens candidate". Josep Ramon Bosch is supposed to not be a member of SSC, so I appointed him separately. E380f876 (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Works for me, thanks for fixing that. †Basilosauridae  ❯❯❯Talk  17:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would add she married again with Miquel Alzueta, as stated in . Nevertheless, user Manlorsen does not want to put that because other sources do not state explicitly she married him, because "he knows that". WP:RS state she married again. E380f876 (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Added back into the article based on the source above. †Basilosauridae  ❯❯❯Talk  18:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear †Basilosauridae  I found your proposal of yesterday in general good and I appreciate your effort. I don't support adding the marriage with Mr. Alzueta because it is not referenced enough, the source https://www.eltemps.cat/article/3287/yo-soy-espanol-espanol-espanol is not very reliable.  The user E380f876 who by the way is being investigated of being Filiprino see [] insists on something that it is in my oppinion not relevant. We had a lot of discussions before with Filiprino about that, please see above. I have found another source saying that she is married with Jose Beltran Marquez  I would like to point out that there are different sources indicating different information (fall in love, marriage, another marriage, etc..). In my oppinion this information is not relevant and it is not well sourced WP:RS. I cannot find a source where this information is denied but that does not mean that the opposite information is correct. We are dealing with [] and as such this information has to be supported by additional reliable sources.--Manlorsen (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In this reference https://elpais.com/diario/2000/08/02/opinion/965167209_850215.html the marriage with the first husband is mentioned and the "second husband" Mr. Alzueta is mentioned but it is not said that they were married. This source should replace the source [1] in the current version because it includes the same but it is much more reliable as it includes an interview to her, in which she said that she learnt from Mr. Alzueta as editor. Therefore it is not clear that they were married.--Manlorsen (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

, thanks for your feedback. The current version notes that she is separated from Alzueta, so I don't see a conflict between that information and her being married to Jose Beltran Marquez. I don't see a problem with the current sourcing, other than that it doesn't make clear what the time periods of the marriages are. I would argue for weak keep of the information on Alzueta, but I'm admittedly not an expert on BLP and I agree that her relationships aren't particularly important to the overall article. If you wanted to open it up for a WP:RfC to get more input, I would support that decision. Respectfully, the sockpuppet investigation is not of importance at this time, as I don't think is being disruptive or non-constructive. Unless the investigation finds that they are a sockpuppet, I will view their contribution in good faith. †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk  22:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * After more consideration I have reversed my stance on this issue. Reviewing BLP, there it is clear that it is better to err on the side of caution, and also that issues irrelevant to the notability should be excluded. Any parties wishing to restore the material should open an WP:RfC. †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk  23:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Reviewing BLP it states you can use any sources as long as they are reliable. The sources stating her marriages are reliable. Your point is, how relevant is it? The information you have left is as relevant as their husbands. Thus, by the same rule, the whole section of personal life should be removed. Articles of people like Inés Arrimadas, Carles Puigdemont or Mariano Rajoy list even the name of parents and siblings. I don't see why you had to remove all of that. It's acceptable. It's part of her personal life to put with who has been married. No need for Rfc unless other users keep trolling or edit warring. The fundamental problem relies on that this person is not as notable as the others I've mentioned, so there are less articles in the press talking about her. E380f876 (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * BLP does not say any information can be added as long as the source is reliable, and the reason for its deletion have been clearly stated above. The current consensus is that it should not be included; re-adding it will be considered disruptive editing. If you wish to dispute this outcome further, an RfC is the appropriate channel. †Basilosauridae  ❯❯❯Talk  00:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll quote BLP for you: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Biographies of living persons ('BLPs') must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material."
 * There is no sign of unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. Privacy of the person is respected. There is no sensationalism by adding her marriage information. The burden of evidence is satisfied. What evidence do you have to remove that material? 0. You don't have evidence to remove that. Prove that it is sensationalist or false. You can't. The same goes for Manlorsen, editor who has gone wild edit warring this article, and as per BLP, I quote: "Wikipedia articles concerning living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself. Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all"
 * I have to remind you that Manlorsen has stated in the past he belongs to Societat Civil Catalana.
 * "The current consensus is that it should not be included"
 * There is no consensus on that. You have not given any reason for your content removal, going against BLP. Your conservative statement is precisely the reason to maintain that information as it is given by the reliable sources. You deviated from your initial point of relevance which I have proved moot. The information is backed up by WP:RS. E380f876 (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

This is my last response to you outside of an RfC. You have been informed of how to appropriately resolve a dispute. Re-adding content without reaching consensus will be considered disruptive. †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk  01:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ”Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, ‘’’exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability,’’’ focusing on high-quality secondary sources.”


 * Disruptive? Because what? Because you say so? You are nothing in this Wikipedia, just a user! Fuck you and Manlorsen!!!!!!!!!!! E380f876 (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, one more thing: marriage is material relevant for the person's notability, as she has been married to editorial's CEOs. The same goes for Mariano Rajoy. I have already proved your point of relevance moot. E380f876 (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Inter-language links?
Are there articles about this person on the Spanish/Catalan wikis? power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 00:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Picture
I’m out and about right now so I can’t add it myself until later, but I wanted to note that Tey is pictured here:

File:Rajoy recibe a dirigentes de Societat Civil Catalana 03.jpg

Caption read: Former President of Spain and People's Party, Mariano Rajoy, receiving managers of SCC. From left to right: Óscar Uceda, Álex Ramos, Miriam Tey, José Rosiñol and Mariano Rajoy. †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk  02:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)