User talk:CFA1877
December 2024
[edit]
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Demographics of Spain, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: "without giving a valid reason"? Hey, I already gave. That section inserted a few months ago was brought from another article. Not only does that section lack neutrality, but it was brought over from another article because it was problematic there. The section is problematic, and breaks the stable version that there has been of this article. It does not seem acceptable to maintain it against all odds. CFA1877 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- That section on ethnic groups was present for at least 1 year ([1]). The stable version would be with its inclusion. Why remove it EvergreenFir (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: "without giving a valid reason"? Hey, I already gave. That section inserted a few months ago was brought from another article. Not only does that section lack neutrality, but it was brought over from another article because it was problematic there. The section is problematic, and breaks the stable version that there has been of this article. It does not seem acceptable to maintain it against all odds. CFA1877 (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: I just told you, it is not neutral, it lacks solid sources and is written from a minority and sectarian point of view. And, as I also just said, it hasn't been part of this article for years, it was brought over from another article because the section was problematic there. Seriously, I didn't remove it for fun, I consider it to be problematic. CFA1877 (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's fine but you're incorrect to say it was agreed a few months ago. It's been over a year. WP:STATUSQUO. The burden is on you to gain consensus for its removal. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- @EvergreenFir: I just told you, it is not neutral, it lacks solid sources and is written from a minority and sectarian point of view. And, as I also just said, it hasn't been part of this article for years, it was brought over from another article because the section was problematic there. Seriously, I didn't remove it for fun, I consider it to be problematic. CFA1877 (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've seen again the edit history and you are right, my mistake, because I read june 2024 and in fact it was june 2023. In any case, without wishing to discuss the rules, I find disgusting that biased material is introduced so lightly and that there are so many problems in removing it. CFA1877 (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Can you explain to me what's biased about it? EvergreenFir (talk) 03:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've seen again the edit history and you are right, my mistake, because I read june 2024 and in fact it was june 2023. In any case, without wishing to discuss the rules, I find disgusting that biased material is introduced so lightly and that there are so many problems in removing it. CFA1877 (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)