User talk:DanyelCavazos

Welcome!

Hello, DanyelCavazos, 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:

You may also want to complete 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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BLP and WP:PRIMARY: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." There is absolutely no need to depend on his slides to write the article when there are numerous secondary news articles; use those to write the article and determine neutrality Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. 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.

That quote is what the BBC - a high quality source - cites; it is not "incomplete" and there is no need to cherrypick more of the quote from the slides. Also, as far as I know, his slides have been deleted and there is no way to know if the slides copied on google docs are actually his. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they have now changed the title of the BBC article. It's not cherry picking, is actually completing the sentence written in the slides.