User talk:Buenovale

Welcome!
Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Touch of Evil, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Touch of Evil. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. If you want to claim that an allegation is inaccurate, you need to provide a source that explicitly states as much. DonIago (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your efforts to address the concerns expressed above! However, please be aware that blogs (as evidenced by the WordPress link you added) are not reliable sources). DonIago (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your continued efforts here, but you are continuing to engage in synthesis by not providing a source that explicitly makes the point that you're trying to make (i.e. the source must mention Touch of Evil). You're also in danger of being perceived as edit-warring by persisting in inserting essentially the same information, though I realize that's not your intention. I would strongly encourage you to start a discussion at the article's Talk page, so that other editors will be aware of what your intentions are and can perhaps assist you in coming up with a better formulation and/or references for the point you're trying to make. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

June 2024 incidents
There are indeed better ways to handle and resolve things than your current behaviour at Next Catalan regional election and, formerly, 2024 European Parliament election in Spain. Edit summaries are not for resolving disputes, and if your edits are the ones in dispute it's up to you to seek a consensus. Imposing your edits against long-standing versions, then demanding others to discuss themselves or you will keep reverting them, is basically disruptive and against Wikipedia policies. Cheers.  Impru 20 talk 14:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No. The onus is on you to explain why an unsourced inaccurate statement has to remain. And the explanation cannot be what you call a long standing consensus. Buenovale (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And please leave this and me alone. You're not rigth. Go to some dispute resolution, but stop bothering me. I repeat: an unsourced inaccurate statement doesn't have to remain in a wikipedia page without you giving any rational argument for it. Buenovale (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not innacurate. The source says "Some countries do not use explicit thresholds, but nonetheless their electoral system imposes an implicit threshold, based mainly on the district magnitude (number of seats per constituency)". In this case, the D'Hondt method is the electoral method at use. The sentence you keep reverting is basically what the source says but applied to the specific case of this election. You are being openly disruptive and should abide to Wikipedia policies: if you make a bold edit and are reverted, then discuss, don't re-revert.  Impru 20 talk 14:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As you say, the source says "the electoral system".
 * What you're failing to recognize is that "the electoral system" for an given election is much more than the D'Hondt method: it is the number of constituencies, the distribution of seats among constituencies, and so on. Buenovale (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not failing to recognize that, since the section already explains how the electoral system works. Actually, considering that your continuous edits don't even address those points you mention, I'm rather considering that this is just a bad excuse.  Impru 20 talk 14:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What? Are you being serious? You can't just make an edit, then say "don't bother me" when you are disputed. This sort of behaviour may require admin intervention outright rather than dispute resolution, who do you think you are to skip all Wikipedia procedures for consensus-building??? You have been given the explanations you required, you're wrong to behave like this.  Impru 20 talk 14:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't been disputed. You're just obfuscated. Take a rest. Give it a day. Buenovale (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have disputed your edit. Personally attacking me won't get you any good here, btw.  Impru 20 talk 14:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Buenovale (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's all you have to say?  Impru 20 talk 14:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, good luck with the disputed edit and leave me alone.
 * Please. Buenovale (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I repeat: this is all that you have to say? You argued that "the implication that the effective threshold exists because of the D'Hondt method" was "innacurate", and that it isn't in the source. The source says that "Some countries do not use explicit thresholds, but nonetheless their electoral system imposes an implicit threshold, based mainly on the district magnitude (number of seats per constituency)". The electoral system in Catalonia (and in Spain) uses the D'Hondt method. The articles also explain that such method is used. You were offered an alternative wording: that "The use of the electoral method may result in an effective threshold based on the district magnitude and the distribution of votes among candidacies". This addressed your raised issues, yet you keep reverting and changing versions over and over again. You refuse to answer here and have even called be "obfuscated" and to "don't bother" you. Let me ask you one more time: this is all that you have to say? Cheers.  Impru 20 talk 14:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's your current wording in one of the pages, not in the other.
 * I agree that wording is much better than the original "long-standing" consensus and what not. Thanks to our back and forth (mostly thanks to my back and forth).
 * In the other page, however, your current wording remain withe "long standing consensus", that is unsourced and inaccurate. Buenovale (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I also wrote this in response to you:
 * As you say, the source says "the electoral system". What you're failing to recognize is that "the electoral system" for an given election is much more than the D'Hondt method: it is the number of constituencies, the distribution of seats among constituencies, and so on.
 * Your response to my above words was not really a response; it was your simple obfuscation, as you certainly would recognize if you give it a rest for a couple of days. If you don't realize it by yourself, I can't help you with your logic or your reasoning abilities. Give it a rest, see if that helps and it was just your obfuscation. Buenovale (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This reply of you makes no sense. I added the wording that you see as "much better" than the original... yet you reverted it. This came after you stated that "it is the number of constituencies, the distribution of seats among candidacies". I accepted it, I added it, yet you reverted it for no logical reason despite a compromise having been reached. What gives?  Impru 20 talk 15:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See my other response about your use of "may". Buenovale (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See my other response about your persistent imagination of new problems every time your previous ones are solved.  Impru 20 talk 15:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to respond to another thing you forgot.
 * As I've said before, in your wording you say that the electoral such and such MAY result in an effective threshold.
 * And as I've said before, it's not that it MAY result, but rather that it CERTAINLY results in an effective threshold in the two elections addressed in the two Wikipedia articles you dispute.
 * In that respect, you're current wording is inaccurate and unsourced in both articles, not just in one of them. Buenovale (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is absurd and you are now being openly disruptive. Every time I come up with a solution, you come up with another issue to prevent a compromise solution being reached. You are basically disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point since I reverted your initial edits of removing the sentence altogether. I am asking you to reach a compromise, yet you are basically ignoring it.  Impru 20 talk 15:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. You don't give a rational response to the "MAY result in" vs "results in" question.
 * 2. You haven't responded to the other article you dispute, the one that even after the back and forth your current wording remains as "the long standing consensus", which is unsourced and inaccurate. Buenovale (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1. Fine. I accept "The use of the electoral method results in an effective threshold based on the district magnitude and the distribution of votes among candidacies" as a compromise.
 * 2. The other article can use "may", since that's the case there (Barcelona uses the legal threshold, the other three use the effective threshold). Alternatively, I can see "In smaller constituencies, the use of the electoral method results in an effective threshold based on the district magnitude and the distribution of votes among candidacies" as a compromise.
 * You have been left out of arguments now.  Impru 20 talk 15:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Those are certainly better than your latest wordings.
 * You remove the unsourced inaccuracies in both of them. Buenovale (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that in your comments, if we revert the "you" and "I", or the "you" and "me", it would be closer to the truth?
 * It's you, not me, who have done the things you criticize.
 * And it's me, not you, who have done the things you praise.
 * Give it a rest, really. A day or two. Ask a friend of yours or a family member. Buenovale (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I won't engage in personal considerations (and obviously won't engage into family issues, lmao), really, back down. I have explained to you everything you asked, and even proposed two compromises. Since those solve the issues at hand, I think these will pose no problem at all. I accept we can give it two days of rest before adding these.  Impru 20 talk 15:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seeing this, I think we got a compromise!  Impru 20 talk 15:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. We've been crossing replies (however that's said in English, "cruzando comentarios", I think I also forgot how to say it in Spanish). Buenovale (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We crossed replies. I agreed above. I wrote:
 * Those are certainly better than your latest wordings. You removed the unsourced inaccuracies in both of them. Buenovale (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See how easy this could be when there is a will to agree? :)  Impru 20 talk 15:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course. Buenovale (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way, I also did a similar edit in the Spanish Wikipedia that you probably missed:
 * https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elecciones_al_Parlamento_Europeo_de_2024_(Espa%C3%B1a)&diff=prev&oldid=160646674 Buenovale (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)