User talk:Caula

Recent edit to Velostat
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the Velostat article, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. You may find our linking guidelines helpful in this regard. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft
Above the edit box for this article it quite clearly reads- PLEASE DO NOT ADD ITEMS TO THIS LIST THAT DO NOT HAVE A LINKED DEDICATED WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. I have removed several entries you made that lacked wikipedia articles. Write the article first....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes you're right, this aviation accident has no connection to a Wikipedia page, but the accident is described in extense in the edition of the Madrid newspaper: 'ABC' of the day after accident, I can understand that some may not speak or read Spanish, but this is more than enough reference for anybody that wishes to check it, 'ABC' has an: 'hemeroteca' section ('past issues') where you can make an open and free of cost search by keyword and/or date, day, month, year. If you only add to the accidents' list those having an internal Wikipedia reference, the list will never grow to include non listed accidents, it's a vicious circle, dividing zero by zero, please check the cited sources, and provide a reason for hidding information that is true and easy to check and to reference. Neither Spanish nor Morocco newspapers used having an english language version, I can't imagine a valid reason for this deletion, but obvioulsy, you're in command of the mouse. Thanks, regards, + salut--Caula (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * List guidelines are found here. Whether it was written up in a non-wikipedia article or not, it don't matter. Consensus requires that every listing on the page has its own wikipedia article. No article, no entry. Write the article first. An administrator  can help explain this to you....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Added events to the list of aviation accidents are referenced enough
Yes you're right, these aviation accidents may have no connection to a Wikipedia page, but it could be very easy including a link to the airplane models involved in the cited accidents, all airplanes in these accidents are described in Wikipedia, and I gave the name of all airplanes when adding the accidents to the list, but I don't know how to include an internal Wikipedia link in an information, if you know somebody knowing how to, and willing to do it, please contact him/her; the accidents are described in extense in the edition of the Madrid newspaper: 'ABC' of the day after accident, I can understand that some may not speak or read Spanish, but this is more than enough reference for anybody that wishes to check it, 'ABC' has an: 'hemeroteca' section ('past issues') http://hemeroteca.abc.es where you can make an open and free of cost search by keyword/s and/or date, day, month, year. If you only add to the accidents' list those having an internal Wikipedia reference, the list will never grow to include non listed accidents, it's a vicious circle, dividing zero by zero, please check the cited sources if you wish, and provide a reason for hidding information that is true and easy to check and to reference. Neither Spanish nor Morocco newspapers used having an english language version, I can't imagine a valid reason for this deletion, but obvioulsy, you're in command of the mouse. Please don't eliminate valid and valuable information. Thanks, regards, + salut--Caula (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jose Gros-Camiso (March 29)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

The comment they left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jose Gros-Camiso and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Jose_Gros-Camiso Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KylieTastic&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Jose_Gros-Camiso reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jose Gros-Camiso (March 31)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jose Gros-Camiso and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Jose_Gros-Camiso Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Onel5969&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Jose_Gros-Camiso reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

 Onel 5969  TT me 13:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Leviathan. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry; I can say that your assertion: 'incorrect information', is absolutely incorrect. It could be said that the comment that the spirits (devils) under the names Leviathan, Neptune, and Poseidon, all connected to the bottom of Seas in cultures diverse, but very close gerographically, as Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans, are the same being, is not sufficiently referenced for you, but: 'incorrect', belongs to a completely different field. The principle of 'reversion of the evidence load', from: 'everyone is innocent unless proved otherwise', will put the command to provide evidence that my asertion is false on you, the right approach is considering it true, unless proved otherwise, 'insuficient reference', or: 'no reference', is another thing. The functions and activities attributed in all these three cultures to Leviathan, Neptune and Poseidon, coincide. The identity between Neptune and Poseidon can be checked inside Wikipedia, thanks for your interest, but I can't accept your comment, that sounds unnecessarily offensive, injurious. Have a good season, regards, + Salut.--Caula (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Jose Gros-Camiso


Hello, Caula. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Jose Gros-Camiso".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  Onel 5969  TT me 20:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd say that the last two deletions you made in info I added to Wikipedia have no obvious reason other than showing you have the power to do it, and bothering me, the entries were accurate, well referenced, and pertinent, the deletion may respond to a hidden censorship or inquisitorial or agit-prop instance. I won't escape the frying pan to fall into the flames, no more comments about this, please consider looking for another activity, as Wiki editors, your level looks insufficient, underground! regards, + Salut--Caula (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Title of a text of Sigmund Freud is not enough reference?
The comments added in the: 'Panic attacks' article are definitions of elementary psychopathology phenomena: 'Social phobia', 'Anticipatory anxiety', requesting references about this is a bit as asking for foundations for a definition of: 'Fever', that almost always means a body temperature above 37º C, I believe. The list of symptoms of: 'Anguish neurosis', comes straight in an article by Sigmund Freud published in 1895, original German title is cited, it's enough reference, and you can't be more precise, as each printing of the text is done with different numbers for individual pages. The additions in the PE article, about the psychopathology of this sex symptom being the fear of castration, the fear that woman keeps the man's penis, is from the 1974 edition of: 'Textbook of psychiatry', Henri Ey, Paul Bernard, Charles Brisset, for sure you'll be able finding a French language copy in some Canadian institutions, page can't be precised, as printings in other languages vary respect to this. Interpretation of what you watch in a movie are enough referenced with the title of the movie itself, what is not in the script can't be referenced, but this doesn't mean it's a lie or inaccurate. The movie about hockey on ice match with the New York Rangers where a girl shows her feelings about the PE of her boyfriend is: 'Mistery, Alaska' (1999), by Jay Roach. Hope this dissipates your doubts and moves you towards reverting deletion of my true, appropriate and accurate comments. Thanks, regards, + Salut--Caula (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

An appreciated textbook on Psychiatry and a S Freud article are more than enough
I can't catch why this censoring attitude is so hardly maintained in front of more than ample references, (Sigmund Freud, Henri Ey,...), of course, you'll never get first grade evidence for many proposals about mental disorders origins or therapy, just Gnoseology is constantly changing, and no universally accepted definition of what Psyche is exists, the very old statement that mind is what reaches conscience from brain functioning was long ago dismissed by the discovery of unconscious and sub-liminal perception, at least.

For example, the S Freud statements, postulates, can't be tested in Randomized Clinical Trials, or Meta-Analysis, best grades of evidence, even if you find clinical studies about results in certain disorders of a: 'Dynamic'='Psychoanalytic' approach to therapy vs others, but this is quite recent.

I'd endorse the Wiki policy in other articles, for example, Mechanical Engineering, where statements are accompanied by the remark: 'Reference needed', but are accepted, I'd say you're going too far, having too much power in censoring editions to Wikipedia Health articles, and your work position in an Emergency Room puts your background and possible experience in a limited, short span frame. How old are you? How did you reach Wiki?

Please revert your deletions, the additions to articles were pertinent and true, you must provide evidence it are false, or give it the: 'presumption of innocence', it are congruent with previous and more known science, referenced, and if you apply it, not misleading, practical end beneficial. A bientôt, + Salut--Caula (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:MEDHOW regarding how to provide a reference. If you continue to add content without references / high quality references you may lose your ability to edit. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Obsessive–compulsive disorder shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this the place to respond? If not, delete
The reference in the Sigmund Freud work to what he called: Anguish attacks, 'Panic attacks', as of today, is in a 1895 writing, included in a compilation for which he provided no fix name, sometimes translators use 'Project for a scientific psychology', and in his work, S F cites it as 'The notebooks', 'The psychology for neurologists', 'The psychology', and: 'The φ ψ ω'.

One of the translations of this article may be: 'Neurasthenia and Anguish neurosis', in its section one, he describes the clinical symptoms of Anguish neurosis as: -the general excitability, -the anxious waiting, and remarks that the proportion of these elements in the anguish attack is infinitely variable, being possible that a single symptom constitutes by itself the attack, and that there are 'rudimentary anguish attacks', and 'anguish attack equivalents', Hecker calls: 'larval states of anguish', S F continues with a list of the forms of anguish attacks known to him: a) With heart activity disturbances. b) With breathing disturbances. c) Sweat attacks. d) Shivering and shakes. e) bulimia attacks, sometimes with vertigo. f) emerging diarrhea g) locomotor vertigo. h) flushing. i) numbness. The following numbers in the article cite: pavor nocturnus, the folie de doute, including agoraphobia, and then cites the mechanism for obsessive neurosis, described in his work: the defense neuro-psychosis.

This, more than responding to a discussion, is becoming working for somebody for free. The reference to myelination in some connection pathways inside brain, namely from area 25 to area 46, and backwards, linked to affective problems becoming of an obsessive nature, is described in chapter 50, pag. 263, volume III of: 'Anatomía humana', by: J Escolar, V Smith-Agreda, P Amat, and J M Smith-Agreda, Zaragoza, Spain, 1966.

Can't understand the reason why the reference to: 'Social phobia', fear of having a Panic attack in public, and 'Anticipatory anxiety', fear of suffering an attack, was deleted from article: 'Panic attacks', it not only are pertinent to the article, but are basic elements in descriptions of mental disorders' symptoms, no need to provide a reference for it, same as no need to provide a reference for 'fever', when talking about infectious diseases.

The issue of Psychodynamic of Premature Ejaculation being fear of castration, in lay language: fear that the woman takes or keeps the man's penis, is in the section: 'Chronic mental disorders', Chapter II, 'The neurosis', I 'Clinical study of neurotic behavior', A-The anomalies of sexual activity, 2- Impotence (and its equivalents, I add), of: 'Textbook of Psychiatry', by Henri Ey, P Bernard, CH Brisset, sixth edition, June 1974. The movie where a girl expresses her feelings about her boyfriend having PE being somehow rejecting her is: 'Mystery, Alaska', 1999.

I guess I've provided more than ample support for the additions, I failed right now in finding the reference for origin of both hysteria and OCD to rely on a childhood age sex molestation, in hysteria victim being purely passive, while in OCD having had some participation, some active role in the resulting pleasure, but for sure, I didn't invent this, I won't have any personal advantage from including anything in Wikipedia, it's just in the readers' and ailed people interest, I don't have any practice, I don't live in the Americas, medical comments for which I have enough qualifications and experience, eg. an ECFMG certification, I don't want discussing more. Have a good year, best regards, + Salut--Caula (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Introducing false information
In this edit you claimed that "The Bible, in Isaiah 55, 10-11, describes how water falls from sky, pervades terrain, and comes back to clouds". However, the English Standard Version of the Bible explicitly says the opposite: "... the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth...".. You appear to have deliberately introduced false information. Please explain. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, the meaning in the Bible text is that rain and snow come down to ground, pervade it, and don't return to sky, to clouds, until having done this, impregnating soil, it has no discussion, either you understand written English, or you don't, saying 'you've deliberately introduced false information' is blaming me of an offense, and calumnies, defamation, injuries, are offenses. As there are many different versions of texts in Bible, I suggest that you look for one having sufficient support, and check if the Isaiah text I added corresponds to the Bible text, regarding interpretation, you can consult with any Teacher of English as Foreign Language, or any Bible school.

The element I point also is that I've gone thru this before, I add a comment, someone blames me of an inaccuracy, or insults my wording, when I complain, as I'm obliged to, I'm accused of violating the 'protocol' rules of Wikipedia, this is what was called a Sadducean trap, and a coarse attempt to subdue those who add content to WP articles, it indicates a censorship attitude, 'the writers are guilty until they prove otherwise', and being forced to provide evidence for your 'innocence' when no offense existed, is actually a severe insult, that is not only unacceptable, but has the added element that the 'reviewers' have probably no better academic credentials as the one who is target of their shots. I'm a member of ASCO, AACR, SAE, ECFMG certified, this is enough, and I can read and understand the English in the Bible, among my ancestry I can count Agar and Saray, not to cite some located in Europe. About the way 'WP reviewers' are chosen, you find some of them report having done more that several hundred thousand editions, this is impossible for a single person, pointing that some editor's names actually hide a group, that is somehow a fake, a lie, this should be carefully reviewed, please consider leaving WP. Have a good season, regards, Salut--Caula (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Arguable translations of Bible
Hallo!: thanks for your interest, I copy the Spanish language version of Isaiah 55, and an attempt of translation made by myself, you'll see the content is as in the edition I put:

10	Como baja la lluvia y la nieve de los cielos y no vuelven allá sin haber empapado la tierra, sin haberla fecundado y haberla hecho germinar, para que dé la simiente para sembrar y el pan para comer, 11	así será la palabra que salga de mi boca. No volverá a mí con las manos vacías -> 'Same as the rain and snow that come down from sky, and don't return there without having soaked the ground, without having fertilized and made it germinate, to produce seeds to saw and bread to eat, so the Word that comes from My mouth will be, won't return to Me with empty hands'. I'd say, no doubt about 'don't return there', means: 'returning to sky', but you know many Bible versions exist, many copyists intervened in the text that arrived to us, and it's easy to provide examples, the 'Standardized' text Hebrew communities handle all over the world seems having been prepared around 7 century by a man, called Ben Asher, ('Asher' could mean, as the German term: 'Ausser'='Foreigner'), who wanted helping in that all communities abroad handled the same text, he was probably a converse to the Moshes line, and this puts even doubts about his 'language background'. Another example is an OT text, when a man in love promises his beloved to give her 'porpoises' furs', as far as I know, the skin of dolphins was never used in Peltry, the most possible candidate for this gift was seal's fur, these days, seals existed all over the Mediterranean. The misnomer is probably connected to the fact that being Israel a people who believed the sea was the place where Leviathan, a devil, stayed, probably same being as Neptune and Poseidon, this changed them into a very little sailing culture. Hope this clarifies your doubts. Have a good season, best regards, + Salut--Caula (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Obsessive–compulsive disorder. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Note
Wikipedia is created and maintained by a community of people. Like all communities do, this community has developed norms for behavior, and it has also developed norms for content in the encyclopedia.

You are ignoring those norms. Please change your behavior. You can start by learning the norms, asking questions about what you don't understand, and when you edit and talk to other editors, doing so with those norms in mind. Please see below for a guide to these norms.

People who show up here and ignore these norms and refuse to learn them, are ostracized. We block them, topic ban them, and/or indefinitely block them.

That is how communities function. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Norms in Wikipedia
Please read the text below. Please note that this just summarizes information that you have already been told many times, and that is linked-to in the welcome message above.

But some people respond better to a single comprehensive overview. Perhaps this will help orient you as to how this place works, and to the key policies and guidelines. It is as brief as I can make it...

The first thing, is that our mission is to produce articles that provide readers with encyclopedia content that summarize accepted knowledge, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of. That's the mission. As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality is really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via lots of discussion. One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of our "policies". And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in space and time, but includes meta-discussions that have happened in the past. The results of those past meta-discussions are the norms that we follow now. We call them policies and guidelines - and these documents all reside in "Wikipedia space" (There is a whole forest of documents in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with " Wikipedia: AAAA" or for short, " WP: AAAA". WP:CONSENSUS is different from Consensus.)

People have tried to define Wikipedia - is it a democracy, an anarchy, secret cabal? In fact it is a clue-ocracy (that link is to a very short and important text).

There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is a very quick rundown:


 * Content policies and guidelines:
 * WP:NOT (what WP is, and is not -- this is where you'll find the "accepted knowledge" thing. You will also find discussion of how WP is not a catalog, not a how-to manual, not a vehicle for promotion, etc)
 * WP:OR - no original research is allowed here, instead
 * WP:VERIFY - everything has to be cited to a reliable source (so everything in WP comes down to the sources you bring!) Please note that writing content that interprets a source, and then citing the source you interpreted is not OK.  Content in Wikipedia summarizes sources, it doesn't interpret sources.  (this is discussed in WP:OR)
 * WP:RS is the guideline defining what a "reliable source" is for general content and WP:MEDRS defines what reliable sourcing is for content about health
 * WP:NPOV and the content that gets written, needs to be "neutral" (as we define that here, which doesn't mean what most folks think -- it doesn't mean "fair and balanced" - it means that the language has to be neutral, and that topics in a given article are given appropriate "weight" (space and emphasis). An article about a drug that was 90% about side effects, would generally give what we call "undue weight" to the side effects. Of course if that drug was important because it killed a lot of people, not having 90% of it be about the side effects would not be neutral)    We determine weight by seeing what the reliable sources say - we follow them in this too.  So again, you can see how everything comes down to references.
 * WP:BLP - this is a policy specifically covering discussion about living people anywhere in WP. We are very careful about such content (which means enforcing the policies and guidelines above rigorously), since issues of legal liability can arise for WP, and people have very strong feelings about other people, and about public descriptions of themselves.
 * WP:NOTABILITY - this is a policy that defines whether or not an article about X, should exist. What this comes down to is defined in WP:Golden rule - which is basically, are there enough independent sources about X, with which to build a decent article.
 * WP:DELETION discusses how we get rid of articles that fail notability.

In terms of behavior, the key norms are: If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly "clueful", as we say. If that is where you want to go, of course. I know that was a lot of information, but hopefully it is digestable enough. -- Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS - already discussed
 * WP:CIVIL - basically, be nice.  This is not about being nicey nice, it is really about not being a jerk and having that get in the way of getting things done.  We want to get things done here - get content written and maintained and not get hung up on interpersonal disputes.  So just try to avoid doing things that create unproductive friction.
 * WP:AGF - assume good faith about other editors. Try to focus on content, not contributor.  Don't personalize it when content disputes arise.  (the anonymity here can breed all kinds of paranoia)
 * WP:HARASSMENT - really, don't be a jerk and follow people around, bothering them. And do not try to figure out who people are in the real world.  Privacy is strictly protected by the WP:OUTING part of this policy.
 * WP:DR - if you get into an content dispute with someone, try to work it out on the article Talk page. Don't WP:EDITWAR.  If you cannot work it out locally, then use one of the methods here to get wider input.  There are many - it never has to come down to two people arguing. There are instructions here too, about what to do if someone is behaving badly, in your view.  Try to keep content disputes separate from behavior disputes.   Many of the big messes that happen in Wikipedia arise from these getting mixed up.
 * WP:COI and WP:PAID which I discussed way above already. This is about preserving the integrity of WP.  A closely related issue is WP:ADVOCACY; COI is just a subset of advocacy.
 * WP:TPG - this is about how to talk to other editors on Talk pages, like this one, or say Talk:Electronic cigarette aerosol and e-liquid.  At article talk pages, basically be concise, discuss content not contributors, and base discussion on the sources in light of policies and guidelines, not just your opinions or feelings. At user talk pages things are more open, but that is the relevant place to go if you want to discuss someone's behavior or talk about general WP stuff - like this whole post.

Thanks, I had a look at the rules, and I'll read it again more carefully, I don't see yet any violation of it from my part, perhaps corrections took some time, but the additions to article are from trusted sources, referenced, and more than pertinent to article, as it add previously not included valuable information, valuable not because I added it, but because of its authors, those who wrote the texts I quoted, I insist, a 1919 text by Sigmund Freud about: 'Obsessive Neurosis', is more than enough reference to be included in the article about OCD, also, I don't guess why somebody insisted in deleting the reference in the textbook of anatomy, by José escolar, 1966, Zaragoza, Spain, Volume III, Chapter 50, page 263: 'Trans-experiential Isocortex -Cingular Isocortex: Brodman Area 25'.

I translate it again: 'Brodman area 25 is in the right position to receive connections from the life experience, and thus, overload potentials from this cortex. This happens every time life experience bio-electric activity goes over a certain threshold, an event taking place when vital experiences of breathing anguish, hunger or pain, increase its level, because not having obtained the appropriate life experience. Area 25, under these conditions, receives potential, and throws it backwards, through the so called 'Cingular bundle', the 'Hook bundle', that under cortex, arrive to the occipital pole and outrun it...impulses coming from area 25 will stimulate and re-stimulate the imaginal areas indicated (42 and 43), then, new flows will jump from here, but with a residual nature, towards the frontal pole (area 46). This way, it's enriched with new info, increasing so the knowledge flow, trying again to obtain an experimental experience of success that solves the affective problem, still pending, pointed above. This way, a practically closed loop is established, that from area 46 influences area 25, that from area 25, through the Cingular and Hook bundles arrives to imaginal areas, and from these areas, launches more info flow to area 46. These circuits result true insistence circuits, and if this is prolonged some time, because the solution to affective problem takes, then, some of the axons in circuit myelinate, so, this becomes permanent, and acquires and obsessive nature (1)'. '(1)We have been able to locate a reference about the architecture of Area 25 only in the work by Cajal (1900), regarding the meaning of Cingular bundle and the derived circuits, sufficient basis exist in the results of Egas Moniz Leukotomy. About the superior cortex areas, there is abundant references, we selected some works, as those of Dusser de Barenne (1950), Garol (1944), Hines (1937). Enough is enough? Please, stop beating me, or tell why. Regards, + Salut--Caula (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Obsessive–compulsive disorder. 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: 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. Sundayclose (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Mobbing in Wikipedia?
I'm afraid, I'm not engaged in an 'Editon war', somebody repeatedly deleted useful, well referenced, and pertinent to the article additions I entered, the way they do this is analog to other similar actions I was a victim of, I don't feel as a victim of aggression when I made a mistake or use an improper procedure, but when someone who doesn't show better academic credentials than mine deletes valid entries, WP is not a board of examiners, is not an University personnel hiring section, some of deletions of my entries could be qualyfyed as 'vandalic', with no apparent reason than showing the power of internal WP editors, and protecting their friends. I have no doubt in qualifying the way I was treated as 'mobbing', some also attempted to blame me of an offense, apparently on hypersensitivity or delusional premises, from suspicion to paranoia, distance is shorter than you imagine, or crying on nonexistent 'wounds'= 'hysteria', besides their deletions not having an scientific basis, it seems there's some kind of a closed group trying to protect their power and privileges in WP, they should be tracked, reviewed, and eventually, have their accounts cancelled. Agur ta erdi...--Caula (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Hello, I'm Ahunt. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Wingtip device that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, really?
Don't know why Wiki editors can qualify an entry as: 'Irrelevant', when clearly connected to article subject, or as : 'Vandalic edition', without giving more explanation than: 'I decided this', and those who add content, meaning those who build Wikipedia, can't make qualificative comments about Wikipedia editor's decissions. This is unfair, this looks as a highly susceptible, hypersensitive, editor's team, or practising: 'Ciber mobbig', that in my case is connected to, follows, previous serious criminal offenses, is unacceptable to me. Please reconsider the deletions of interesting material, explain it with enough detail, including the Wiki rules supposedly broken, and how it were broken, and reconsider, reshape all your policies. I have an academic background that is comparable, if not higher, to any Wiki censor, so, I can't accept this restriction of freedom, that results in harm to readers and users. Thanks, regards, + Gesund--Caula (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Aircraft articles
Hi, I undid your edits at tailless aircraft and delta wing articles for a reason. These articles are not just collections of minor fan trivia but cover the more significant aspects of each topic. The bold-revert-discuss guideline recommends that if you make a bold edit and someone reverts it, then you need to discuss it on the article talk page before attempting to reinstate it. If you disagree with the edit comments I made when reverting, please bring that up on the article talk page and do not WP:EDITWAR. Thank you. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrism in Aircarft Articles
If you maintain the reference to the Convair Delta Supersonic Seaplane, no obvious reason to delete the entries I added, of a similar weight, the fact that you have the power to erase doesn't mean your decisions are right, your comment about 'trivia' is unnecessarily insulting, and an element can be always considered, in an Encyclopedic work, that the more information, the best, if data are true, no valid reason to eliminate it. You know, Wikipedia users are literate, they can make choices about what to read and what to read not, if the title in article means: 'All Delta Wing Airplanes ever built', adding several that were not present is a good thing. You should consider resignation, after reverting your attacks. Agur. Salut +--Caula (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Above here, user Jytdog highlighted WP:DR on dispute resolution as a policy or guideline you should read. May I suggest you re-read it. I would also add WP:NPA - No Personal Attacks. FYI there is a List of delta-wing aircraft, which is how the English Wikipedia does 'All Delta Wing Airplanes ever built', and where those additions of yours would be more appropriate. There is a similar list section at tailless aircraft. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

'List of Delta Wing Aircraft' is limitless concept regarding extension, in this list, the Payen and the Dyke Delta are included, thanks, but the 'Flying Dart' by Roy Scroggs, having the remarkable interest of being patented in 1929, and identical in Delta wing shape to the Handley Page P.115 of 1951, the Scroggs dart even if not fully airborne, reached the state of prototype and attempted flying, see the YouTube video: 'The last laugh', is not there in the list. As the content in article 'Delta Wing' and others cited is similar, a merger could be considered. Again, using the term 'trivia' for a reasonable addition, is insulting, you may say: 'The edition doesn't fulfill the rule $$$$ of Wikipedia, that estates that: xxxx', but judgements of value are absolutely unacceptable, unless the edition is obviously an insult, or call from crimes, or something alike. Thanks for your attention, regards. Salut +--Caula (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The steep delta "dart" wing was the subject of the earliest known patent for a tailless aircraft, by Butler & Edwards in 1867. Scroggs' patent, which incidentally dates from 1917 and also includes a tail, added nothing but nonsense while his tailless "The Last Laugh" machine was too sharply cropped at the nose to be a delta at all and its aerodynamics were equally mistaken. By contrast the HP 115 not only flew a successful research programme but was studying a valid supersonic design concept which led directly to the Concorde. Sorry, but I regard "trivia" as an accurate objective assessment of Scroggs. See also the style guide on WP:TRIVIA which, though not directly relevant here, illustrates how Wikipedia understands the term at an impersonal level. This may help you understand that no personal insult was or is intended. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the new info. I failed in locating in Espacenet the: 1867! patent by Butler & Edwards, searching with these names and the time span 1830-1890, neither as the inventor nor the applicant. It would be of great help to all Wiki users if you can provide accurate info helping in downloading the patent. 'Aerofiles' indicates the Roy Scroggs 'Flying dart' flew, it had no tail, but something in between a rhomboidal shaped fuselage and upper fin, the flight was just at 30 ft above ground. Scroggs 'Flying dart' machine was a Delta, but with the point cut, to give room for the propeller to turn, a very small straight line leading edge doesn't change the basic shape of a delta, the Saab Draken has some similarity and is included in Delta's list without discussions. The Handley Page HP.115 was designed to study the low-speed characteristic of an extreme swept delta; yes, data were used in Concorde, this configuration was chosen to take advantage of the secondary swirls on upper wing surface that improve lift in Delta-shaped wings at a high angle of attack. You can check this inside Wikipedia. Even if it were the Wiki policy, or anybody else's, 'Trivia' is an insulting term in the frame used. Better eliminated from the vocabulary. Regards. Salut +--Caula (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI:
 * Butler & Edwards' British patent, dated 1867, is not to my knowledge available online. The original should be in the British Library but even their catalog listing it is not online. It is briefly mentioned and illustrated in David Wragg's Flight before flying, and there are probably other reliable sources (RS). It is said to be patent No. 2115 and to be described in Octave Chanute's Progress in Aviation, but I have not confirmed this.
 * On the other examples, I will say only that the Draken, the HP.115, and the Concorde are all reliably sourced as deltas. Scroggs may have started with a delta but he cropped it by a massive 50% or so. You would need to find WP:RS of your own before Wikipedia could accept it as another delta.
 * &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

About the Roy B Scroggs' 'Flying Dart', please watch the YouTube video: 'The last laugh!', and connected videos from model airplane makers, the airplane is described in: 'Aerofiles', a patent of a similar Delta winged machine, with a leading edge as swept back as the HP.115, was granted to Roy Scroggs: US1250033, 1917; another Delta exists in 'Espacenet': US1848578, 1932; also from R Scroggs.

The assertion that the Scroggs Delta in 'Flying Dart' is cropped is not accurate, as a matter of fact, the Draken, especially the prototypes, had a larger straight leading edge section, the 1932 Scroggs machine had this just for the propeller, and the propeller disc goes beyond the extremes of straight cut in delta point. It's a bit reckless making statements that a simple look at cited documents will deny.

The I.A.M.E., designed in Argentina by Reimar Horten, resembling a Canadian project Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow, is another example of 'Truncated point' Delta Wing.

Many patents from 1867 are available through Espacenet, I'll check why the ones you cited, by Butler&Edwards, is not there. If possible, please add a link, readers will be grateful for this. Who deleted, and why, the references to: 'Supersonic Aerodynamics of Delta Wings', NASA Technical paper 2771; the NACA Research Memorandum nº L7F16: 'Langley full-scale tunnel investigation of maximum lift and stability characteristics of an airplane having approximately triangular planform (DM-1 Glider)', about Alexander Lippisch L-13/ DM-1; and to the pivotal article by Robert T Jones: 'Properties of low-aspect-ratio pointed wings at speeds below and above the speed of sound', NACA report nº 835? Please revert that vandalism. Regards. Gesund +--Caula (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Impossible finding the 1867 Butler & Edwards, Nº 2115, patent or design document in the British Library search engine, they offer a custom ordered search, but the cost is around 25 Sterling for 15 minutes. Too much for me. Abebooks offers cheap copies of the Chanute and Wragg books. A patent, it includes drawings, and can be easily located, retrieved and downloaded, is always an acceptable and more than enough referenced source. Thanks, regards. Gesund +--Caula (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have answered most of your points already, or linked to policies and guidelines where answers may be found, if you care to re-read my replies. I have nothing more to add. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You believe this, but it's far from being the truth. The interest in reading again and again, over and over, statements identical to the first ones, wrong in content, lacking evidence or bylaw support, harming the readers who are stolen a valuable information, is minimal, I have no time to lose. In Spanish there's a proverb for this: 'In case of mistake, maintain it, not amend it', or as a character in a poem by Miguel de Cervantes: 'To the tomb of Philip the II (King of Spain and of the UK)': 'It's true all what your mercy says, mr. soldier, and whoever says otherwise, lies'. Danke. Agur. Salut +--Caula (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

2 July 2018
I have opened a discussion at Talk:Delta wing, to which you are invited to contribute. Please respect our policies on civility, especially no personal attacks and assuming good faith. If you continue your renewed edit warring at Delta wing, or fail to comply with out civility policies, then I should warn you that sanctions may be taken against your behaviour, whether you ultimately prove right or wrong. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Atlantis are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

June 2020
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. El_C 00:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

-Please indicate exactly to which comment do you refer as 'personal analysis', I never state opinions, but true facts, if reality is in contradiction to someone else's 'propaganda', it's their fault, not mine. Thanks. Blessings +--Caula (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. El_C 00:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for personal attacks and disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. El_C 00:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)