User talk:79.158.77.228

April 2021
Please refrain from using talk pages for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Your indication is wrong from the very beginning, what I added are true facts, and also the way to check it was included, it are pertinent to article subject, of some interest, can't be placed in main article; the Wikipedia censors' policy seems punish first, then find the reason why, or let guilt grow in accused people. Sorry, your comment lacks any foundation, it's just a damnation, adds nothing to users. Please consider another ectivity. Blessings +


 * The note I added is a standard note, it's not written by me so your frustration is misplaced. Moreover, after ten years of active involvement here, I don't really think I need anyone who joined today to tell me what's wrong. More importantly, though, you are absolutely right about the problem: you think are adding "true facts". At Wikipedia, we don't care one bit about the "truth", we care about verifiability WP:V and reliable sources WP:OR. As long as you keep adding "truths" but without sources, they will be removed. That's not "censorship", it's just you failing to back up what you claim. Jeppiz (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. You assume too fast 'I joined today', perhaps I'm older than you in adding content to Wikipedia, won't discuss this, about my academic credentials, no interest in yours, besides university teachers and Nobel prizewinners, nothing compares to me. It's absolutely unacceptable an insulting, warning or discrediting message being sent automatically by a system. The kind of evidence you request as evidence for origin of surnames, 'noms de famille' in french, is impossible unless you have a time machine and can follow, track the people wearing that surname for several generations, or check it in Parish documents, as Mormons did. Indicating entering the surnames in a search engine, and the name of french magazine which published about it, is more than enough evidence, reference, proof. If you had follow this suggestion, the time and manpower employed in checking that data I added are true would have been less than cost of writing the warning note to me. Again: you re worng. Blessings +

May 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Nuclear weapon, you may be blocked from editing. BilCat (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II, you may be blocked from editing. BilCat (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I never invent data, always reference entries somehow. If you don't indicate exactly to what entry you refer, and why you think no reference was provided, I'm in a situation of impossible defense. My feeling about the Wiki referees is it are active in blocking, discrediting, inquisitorial activities, psychic attacks, but their academic background never appears clearly enough. You are wrong again, and assaulting me. Thanks. Blessings +

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Loyola de Palacio. CodeTalker (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Hello, I'm Uranium Site. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Research Diagnostic Criteria, 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 the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Uranium Site (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The deletion by uranium, the heaviest of stuff, of info added to RDC article is a vandalic edition, source of 1975 printing and authors data was clearly identified, easy to check, if you could provide a routeable e-mail address, I could scan and send the cover page of 1982 Spanish translation of RDC, including these references. That Robert L Spitzer was in charge of DSM III edition appears in Wikipedia, both Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist), and DSM III articles. This is bullying, sabotage, young guy, abstain from further attacks to thruth, and consider a resign. Thanks. Blessings

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The author information was already present in the citation, your addition was redundant. Stop attacking other editors who are cleaning up after you. You will be blocked for a longer term if you keep doing this.  Acroterion   (talk)   13:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Unblock
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/77601-there-is-another-world-and-it-is-in-this-one for Paul Eluard quotation

About Luis Maria de Palacio, older brother of ministers Ana and Loyola, I can send you a copy of his DNA analysis, dated 2012, Genographic test ID# is FWMJGG893V -Y; FWTVH44KHQ for mtDNA; FamilyTree DNA database ID# is N55906; PW V6988; he was born January 5, 1946; his SS number is 28/01888851/61, Spanish ID card number is 01352024S; was known as 'the bohemian brother of ministers', could provide his home address, but I won't do this; data about his titles, marquis of Matonti, marquis of Guaimaro, can be found in Spanish Wikipedia and nobility pages; the info about Loyola gave eye to widower Gil-Robles was referred to me by a teacher of law who shared physician's waiting room with Loyola. Info about IAE-36 'Cóndor' appears in Spanish Wikipedia and many Aviation history pages, you just need typing airplane name on any search engine; that it is similar to Sud-Aviation 'Caravelle' is self-evident, as long as you are not blind, or have bias, prejudices, or conflicts of interest. Also in Wikipedia appear the references about 'the patriotic putsch' of 1955 that overthrown Juan Perón.

Before blaming anyone of 'unsourced data', please try to confirm info elsewhere, eg, in a search engine, it can take less time, less effort doing this than blocking straigh ahead a writer. Information about Loyola death appeared in Madrid newspapers, was reported to me by her relatives and by physicians in HDoc.

About Nuclear weapons and Spain, information comes from media sources, eg 'ABC', 'EL Pais', 'El Mundo', 'Huffington post',... as several are not 'formal' sources, it's hard providing a reference, but anyone having collected info about this will confirm. The sampling of foam from H bombs dropped on Palomares appears in Spanish documents, including Wikipedia; that Lithium is used to enhance power of nuclear fusion explosions appears in the Hydrogen bomb article in Wikipedia, also in articles about fusion reactions in Stars. No valid reason to delete it.

If you want to hide some informations because other reasons, please avoid false rationalizations as 'unsourced material', just do it because you wanted to. It's more fair. Please revert blockade, revert deletions, info added was accurate and valuable, I don't know if this IP address is used or shared by others, I have suspicions a key of my home is in other hands, but lack evidence. Thanks. Blessings +


 * Vaguely mentioning sources in passing in edit summaries is not sufficient attribution, and is of no help to readers who are looking for background. It is a fundamental requirement to provide references as required by policy, in the content where it can be found and followed.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

About the citatuion of Robert Spitzer work 'Research Diagnostic Criteria', there is an specific article about this in Wikipedia, I ignored this, otherwise I'd have used the link, I insist IAE-36 'Cóndor' has an article in Wikipedia, and all other citations are in public domain, if you don't point exactly to what entry you require more sources, references, the comment becomes a personnal attack, an intent to subdue, rather than an action addressed to improve quality of what reader's get. Please indicate excatly about what would you need more references, sources. The: 'First shot, then ask' is not an acceptable procedure. Your comment has a more intense line of the faults you blame me, it's absolutely vague, generic, unespecific. Thanks. Blessings +


 * If I may make a suggestion: Spanish Wikipedia is a lot less strict about requiring sources than English Wikipedia. As you seem to have some difficulty communicating in English, perhaps it would be best for you to contribute to Spanish Wikipedia only. BilCat (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)