Maldull

CS1 error on Spanish nationalism

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Spanish nationalism, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll check it. Maldull (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Spanish nationalism

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Spanish nationalism, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment

Hi, Maldull. What's up. I am letting you know. This may be surprising to you, but in order to add content to a given Wikipedia article you may be required to use sources dealing about the topic of the article, if you want to avoid heavy WP:OR/WP:COATRACK issues.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I am "mistaken" in regard of perks of Wikipedia editing. I think that there are sources dealing with nationalism in both sides, but you need to use those sources, not capricious statements sourced with random sources to make a point.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I will not give you any more time to talk: use sources dealing about Spanish nationalism in the article Spanish nationalism. Is it simple enough for you? Or too much of a challenge?--Asqueladd (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you erased if without to check any of the sources, that of course were there. Maldull (talk) 14:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Asqueladd, frankly, the sources were there. I do not understand your reaction. Maldull (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

To begin with, I see no mention whatsoever (let alone any kind of holistic approach) to "Spanish nationalism" in here: [1][2].--Asqueladd (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

My reaction is simple. I already explained this to you. You need to use sources dealing about Spanish nationalism in the article Spanish nationalism. What's so difficult to understand about that? Please get that concept right . I suggest you to read WP:NOR, WP:UNDUE, and WP:COATRACK.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

To clean the nation is not nationalism? Maldull (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:BITR It is warranted if sources about Spanish nationalism deal with that (and you cite those sources and not others). Am I talking to a wall?--Asqueladd (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion (and I am stopping here because you haven't moved one bit into understanding how to follow core Wikipedia policies and guidelines): if you want to write about Republican Spanish nationalism you should use quality sources dealing with that (for example: [3]). If you want to write about Spanish nationalism in elements of the Republican faction in 1936–39 you can use and cite this. And so on...--Asqueladd (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

So, for example, the book "La locura y su razón historica", ISBN 978-84-941563-7-3, telling how the republicans were sent to mental institutions by the nationals, because the national cleansing politics, is not a good source. Well, it is hard to discuss about. I left it here. Maldull (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

What's so amazing about a WP:SELFPUBLISHED historical novel about "madness" written by a psychiatrist from Toledo in an article about nationalism?--Asqueladd (talk) 15:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you read it? Maldull (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you? Because it does not seem 1) a source about the topic 2) a reliable source 3) it is labelled as an "historical novel" (LOL WTF?). And it is certainly not an authoritative source.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

After to check it in my hands, it is not a novel Maldull (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

it is 3 sources, two direct ones, and the one you just mention in where you have to find the information inside. Maldull (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "indirect source", if you want to avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, but you should already know that if you had read WP:OR as you were suggested to.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Indirect source means that you have to read it, that the subject is not in the title. Maldull (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

it is exhausting Maldull (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I have brought two examples of sources in which, let alone "being in the title" (thus actually being about the topic), the topic is not even mentioned a single time in the text.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

So let me get this right. You quote a historical novel about a psychiatrist (which you probably did not read) trying to pass it as an actual source, and adjourn it with two press reports in which the topic is not event mentioned to concoct a subsection in which the topic is not directly adressed either. And you pretend that you are establishing due weight in a Wikipedia article. Are you joking? Don't waste my time anymore.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

A novel? Please, you believe internet description instead to have the book. What a source. Anyway, do not worry, I have no intention to disturb you anymore, anytime. Maldull (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

. . . What a stuff of noise !!