BallenaBlanca

Hello, BallenaBlanca, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Cirt (talk) 06:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I appreciate the help with my edit on the fibromyalgia entry. By secondary source does Wikipedia only consider publications such as the British Medical Journal for example or would an online journal, staffed by journalists, doctors, pharmacists and TV news director, such as National Pain Report be adequate? (http://nationalpainreport.com/staff) Thanks Leeraven172 (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments at WP:MED. I think you make some good points. I'm not sure your expressed opinion fits with Option 5. This, to me, reads that we can keep all the videos provided the promotional start/end sections are removed. You can see Doc James supports this as he already has plans to remove those parts of the videos. So you will end up entirely with the same problems you describe, just with a bit less promotion. Since you appear to favour "short videos on specific aspects", which is close to what I suggest at WP:NOTYOUTUBE, that doesn't fit with the current Osmosis model of producing videos on entire topics. It seems to me your comments fit more with Option 3 (remove all) with of course the option to consider "another approach" to videos.

I haven't read all your discussion with OsmoseIt wrt your claim they are "proud and arrogant". In my experience, newbies need some time to orient themselves to WP practice, and OsmoseIt has made fewer than 50 edits to WP, and none to any article body text, so even though they've been here since 2015, they are still clueless and some allowances might be justified. Outsiders do not naturally understand our concerns. Mind you, there are one or two long-term editors that don't seem to understand our concerns either :-(.

Not trying to pressure you to change your vote. Just FYI. -- Colin°^Talk 09:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

https://xkcd.com/386/

. :-) -- Colin°^Talk 12:41, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, BallenaBlanca,

This is just a small thing: When people add blank lines in talk page replies, it screws up things for some of our blind editors. You can read more about the problem at WP:LISTGAP if you're curious, but the basic story is that it's helpful to remove blank lines between all paragraphs that start with : before saving. A lot of people don't know about this problem, but I thought that you'd want to know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have created new content about chromium dietary supplements. Because I have a declared COI, I placed it as New section in Chromium deficiency Talk. I am asking you and several other editors with an interest in nutrition/supplements to look at it and comment, perhaps making changes and/or stating that it is appropriate to move into the article, or not. A separate question is whether it belongs in Chromium deficiency, Chromium, or both. Thank you for the consideration. David notMD (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

One of the other editors I asked moved the content into the article, so if you plan to get to it, it's there now. [User:David notMD|David notMD]] (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you give up reactive edits like this in the article Catalan independence referendum, 2017 when informations that contradict Spanish official versions are added. The article is presently hermetic, and your attitude seems to not be helping a lot. Your edit revert is also confusing ("Leaving aside other considerations, trim this content per WP:SPA. Before reinserting again, please reach consensus in the PD"). "Trim this content per WP:SPA"? PD?

Adding confusing edit summaries or forcing repeated discussions to extenuation with complete disregard to the WP general principles may be regarded as disruptive editing, and/or WP:GAME. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

The content you deleted was backed up with a secondary source, what are you talking about?ApolloCarmb (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

My user talk page is not the place for this conversation. Use the specific talk page. Thanks. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 17:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I noticed you're currently restoring the nationalities of several Spanish nationalities edited by Apollo. I thought you might want be interested in a list of some of the articles:

Cheers! --Jamez42 (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Declined. Copy and paste from [1]:

Declined
"I'm closing this now before it escalates any further. Inaki, please keep it on the talk page, quit making personal attacks, address specific points of contention or do not revert at all, and employ dispute resolution measures if and when they are needed. Getting your opponent blocked is not an option. User:Swarm 22:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)"

--BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 08:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is all about attitude with clear POV overtones, and an ANI is a privileged place to expose all the matters relevant to the dispute. Of course I added specific diffs about unacceptable behaviour, all the same they have gone unaccounted for. Where is going the EN WP? Who knows. WP:BUREAUCRACY Very sad really. Iñaki LL (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Iñaki, with all due respect, I'm going to make a comment. If you are not comfortable, you do not respect and do not want to comply with the English Wikipedia policies and the decisions of the administrators, nobody forces you to keep here, Wikipedia is a volunteer service WP:VOLUNTEER.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 13:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I brought this here from here, since this is a behavioural issue. I do not need wasting time, we do not need litigational or walls looking like personal investigations, do you understand that? That does not help the smooth editing process, it just adds confusion and extenuation, so be calm in your edit drive. You removed verified information' in your information re-arrangement, and I had to come back to restore it. My verified statement was not in any previous informations, still you decided single-handedly that you could get rid of it.

Plus reactively you added an information that links the victim to hurling a fence (is it really something relevant?). What we see is a shocking violent police charge against unarmed people sitting down, when a moment later someone or two throw in the heat of the moment a fence; still this is your edit summary. You decided to add reactively Ok Diario's adjectivally charged statement (this is not a minimally credited source, I repeat it, but will not engage now in removal and a foreseeable edit warring, just for the sake of smooth editing), I do not have as much time as you do. Also read this: WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Also please do read this on edit summary, this is the second time I brought this up to you, to not much avail from what I can see. Be concise, Ok? Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

NOTE

The user Iñaki LL deleted my messages from his talk page [2] and copied them here irregularly [3], claiming that here is where they belong, ignoring the policies on user talk pages and the extract I left with the link, which says: : Wikipedia:Tutorial/Talk pages#User talk pages "If someone has left you a message (...) You can reply in either of two ways. One is to put a message on the user talk page of the person you are replying to. The other is to put your reply on your own talk page beneath the original message. Both are common on Wikipedia; however, be aware that replying on your own talk page runs the risk that your reply won't be seen if the user does not look at your talk page again."

He is not authorized to edit or move my messages per WP:TALKO, nor to move or reproduce my own signature, which is personal and non-transferable, also creating confusion on where I edited. I trimmed them and I will restore my original comments in his TP, but I respected his answer here, I will not move or delete what he wrote here, I have made this clarification so that it is not out of context and one can understand what this message above refers to: --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 00:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

This belongs here, where I first posted with the first message, so I bring the thread over here (not in my talk page where you replied your second message at the top). I pointed there to issues found in your editing beyond content in the article Catalan referendum, where you are the main editor, highlight these issues and giving you hints for smooth editing. Instead I get this. Listen, I am not taking anybodies rough manners or personal attacks, and not yours. I do not have time now because I am travelling, so I will respond ASAP when I can. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

I especially appreciate the Thanks coming from you, the #1 contributor of edits (128) and content (58%) at Gluten: you've been editing there for 3 years, I for 3 days! I'm glad you found my edits to be useful. I may do a bit more there, please keep an eye on any future edits of mine... Regards IiKkEe (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have reviewed you latest 2 edits at Gluten, and wondered if you would perhaps clarify what ATI stands for: perhaps spell it out? Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC).Reply

It is required to provide an explanation when you revert good faith edits. use the edit summary for this.--▸ ‎épine _talk♬ 13:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

You asked me to provide a reference for deleting an unsubstantiated claim (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peanut_allergy&oldid=prev&diff=896515729). Claims need a reference to be included, not to be deleted. What I deleted was a claim that Brazil was the only country in the world that required trace amounts of allergens in food to be labeled. ("The declaration of the presence of trace amounts of allergens in foods is not mandatory in any country, except Brazil.") There are 3 references given but none of these references support this statement about Brazil. In fact if you read the given references it would appear that the EU has even more stringent allergen declaration requirements than any country including Brasil. ADDITIONALLY this "only in Brazil" theme is mentioned once or twice more in the body of the article. It's a duplicate and redundant statement. So I removed it from the Lead Section but I left it in the body of the article in hopes that someone more knowledgeable than me would provide a proper reference (or delete it altogether.) The statement may have been made in good faith but that doesn't make it correct. Mensch (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Soy allergy has undergone a flurry of edits since you last contributed. Would you please look at it and decide if it should be changed from Start-class to C-class, or perhaps even B-class? Also, Shanefiddle and I have been back and forth on content, verging on edit warring. The disputes have cooled off for now, but I hazard a guess that we are both suffering from edit fatigue. (For background, I have experience with sci lit on nutritional biochemistry and immunology. Shanefiddle has personal experience of having a severe soy allergy.) I would appreciate the favor of your bringing a fresh eye to the article. David notMD (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Autism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bangalamania (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply