User talk:TechnicianGB

Welcome!

Hello, HardstyleGB, 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.

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! : Noyster (talk), 22:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit War on the Valencia Climate Table

Why are you changing the official climate normals for the period 1981-2010, when you don't even have a source for your climate normals of the period 2001-2010. 2001-2010 is also a too short time period. Here is the offical source for the 1981-2010 climate normals http://www.aemet.es/es/serviciosclimaticos/datosclimatologicos/valoresclimatologicos?l=8416&k=val --Guajara3718 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes? And could you tell me please what's that. My invention? haha! I've just copied the climate chart from 2001-2010 from the article Climate of Valencia in the paragraph "climate" in the article of Valencia. I even didn't make that chart. The source? You can look it. Yes in fact that's the source for the mean averages during the 2001-2010 period and it's from the recordings of the meteo station of AEMET of the city of Valencia during that period. But do what you want, in part you are right too so if you want revert the changes to your last edition. This is not the same case as 78.133.67.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who only deleted (because he wanted) or he edited articles without any source. I've made a undo to your last edition because I thought that you are the same user but I've look at you profile and you are an old user. That's the climate chart from 2001 to 2010 with all official data from AEMET. But if you want, revert my last changes and update it to your edition from today, because the chart from 1981-2010 is also correct.

Regards. --HardstyleGB (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I've undo my last edition and I only corrected a few info like "the normal minimums are from 4 to 12" because "2 to 12ºC" is not true, temps of 2ºC in the city of Valencia are very rare. In fact there are years in which the temperature don't falls under 4ºC in the city of Valencia (not the airport), you can check this at the weather stations of Wunderground.

Regards! --HardstyleGB (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Lanzarote

Hi. Just wanted to explain the change I made on the Lanzarote article. I changed what you have added back because it disagreed with the referenced cite which says that Arrecife has a Köppen Classification of Tropical and Subtropical Desert Climate.

If you have a better cite that says it is "hot desert climate" then please include it. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC) --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

That source is not official, and "subtropical-tropical desert climate doesn't exist" as a climate classification, but anyways Escape Orbit even that source which you are saying, which is the source from Lanzarote page, says that the climate is BWh, and BWh stands for hot desert climate under Köppen climate classification (check it if you don't believe). Here and here you can check that they define the climate as BWh; but as "weatherbase", they aren't authoritative at all. It's BWh because it meets all the requeriments to be considered this kind of climate, BWk means cold desert climate, while Lanzarote has warm and pleasant temperatures during all the year. But I will return to the last edition of subtropical-man, because "subtropical-desertic climate bordering a tropical climate" is accepted because it defines well the climate of the city. Anyways, in your last edition you've deleted various things which were before my changes, and also you've deleted true information like the one related with the rain, you can check it by yourself on the official climate chart that you have below. Why you did revert my changes if this was sourced with the official climate chart from below? Then, we have the Köppen climate classification guide, and according to this guide, Arrecife has an hot desert climate. Why? Because as you can see, the precipitation patterns go under the classification of a desertic climate. Then, BWk is not true for Arrecife, look at places with cold desert climates and then compare them... This climate better can entry under the description of mild desert climate because it's highly influenced by the Atlantic Ocean, but cold desert climates have very cold winters, while Arrecife's climate is warm and pleasant during all the year. Also, BWk holds for the centre of Gran Canaria and Tenerife islands, in places located at high altitudes, look at the map that you've put by yourself (the map of Köppen climate classification) only the center of those 2 islands are marked with pink... Also that image is in a big scale, you can determine which kind of climate is by searching for the climate standards under Köppen's classification... And Lanzarote island it's not BWk because all year average is above 18ºC (the annual average is above 21 degrees, check it on the official source of AEMET). Check it by yourself on the guide. Please Subtropical-man read better the description of BWk climate and search climate examples with that climate. For example Nukus has a cold desertic climate. It's averages during January are close to -5ºC, Lanzarote is close to 18ºC. Those are only explicative examples, as I've said before, please search for the definition of cold desert climate on Köppen climate classification. Regards.

--HardstyleGB (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

HardstyleGB, please stop edit warring. Canary Islands is not BWh (see File:Koppen_World_Map_BWh.png) but BWk - see map: File:Koppen_World_Map_BWk.png.

Sorry but you need to check better the definition of Wikipedia:Edit warring, because you are making it. It's NOT BWk, just look at the definition of cold desert climate and hot desert climate by yourself. Hot desert climates (BWh) are the desert climates with annual averages above 18ºC and Winter averages above 0ºC. Lanzarote has an annual average less than 18 degrees and a winter with less than 0 degrees? Not, right? Then, why you still reverting my changes if you are contradicting the Köppen climate classification ?? You can check it at the own source from the climate page of Lanzarote, they define it as BWh. If this source and the description of desert climate according to the Köppen climate classification aren't enough for you , just use the common sense. If cold desert climates are those ones with cold winters and annual averages under 18ºC... How could Lanzarote enter here? Where is the place in Lanzarote with less than 18 degrees of annual average or with winters with temperatures under 0ºC? Please source it, and then I will accept your changes. You're contradicting the source and Köppen climate classification...

Besides, before the new changes - consensus, according to the Wikipedia:CYCLE. If you re pushing your new controversial changes without consensus, you will be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators, cause: edit-warring and pushing the new controversial changes despite opposition, without discussion and consensus. This is last warning. Until the consensus, your new changes have been reverted. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're the one which is contradicting Köppen climate classification and the source from the climate of Lanzarote page and also you can't say me "final warning" because it's the 1st time that you warn me and also you're the one which is contradicting the source.

--HardstyleGB (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

References

June 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Economy of Italy may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{Infobox economy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

True! Thanks for the message. Solved :)

Hi I answered your question on List of European countries by average wage. Hope its what you wanted.--2A02:8109:8140:15D4:C4A9:720D:DF48:2874 (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks man! I appreciate --HardstyleGB (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Your recent editing history at Economy of Italy 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 article's 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sunmist3 (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Stoping the vandalisation of an anonymous user which is doing sock-puppetry is not any edit war and it's not breaking any three-revert rule, please confirm this with a librarian. I have a loooot of time in Wikipedia making voracious edits, you can check it on my contributions; so thanks for the reminder but it's not needed at all. I know what it's the 3RR. Reverting obvious vandalism is not breaking the 3RR (please check it on the page three-revert rule). I'm not acting bad, I'm just solving the edits of a vandal with static IPs. Anyways, I will not do it today, as I've seen that other users have seen what happens in that page and they're helping me. --TechnicianGB (talk) 12:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

User name

Please see a discussion about you at User talk:Céréales Killer#OK to link the old and new user names? You can comment there if you wish. If you will agree to the creation of a redirect, it would be the simplest way to address the issue. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Of course! why not. Regards --TechnicianGB (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American cockroach, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frost-free. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

So you thank me and you tell about me i'm suspicious.Is that thank real?Wikipedia asks to be in good feith.In the page Datsmacro that you posted there are just all gross data about many european states.In Datosmacro that you like a lot for Spain there also data about Italy. Italy has a gross wage there of 30710€/year while Spain 26259/year.There are data also about many other european countries but all gross.2015 Data of Eurostat aren't an expetation neither for Italy neither for Spain.Many other Eurozone countries net average wages according to Eurostat are wrong in the article (France,Germany,Ireland,Austria and so on should be all controlled because many of them have dated or not clear references.Same thing for small countries like Liechtenstein). For Italy the official real source should be Istat as the guy argued in the discussion but it hasn't an official data. Cheking in Istat page Retribuzioni the averge value should be around 2057€ net.The only official data that can be used for Italy and Spain are the Eurostat ones.I agree with you about it. Ambidibody (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Come to talk, do not just edit something...

Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia

Kirev (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mexican immigration to Spain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

A Coruña

Hi, I just saw the edits. Thanks for changing it back. Just wanted to say that in the text of my edit, I was refering to A Coruña only. I was using the convention used in the Koppen climate classification article, where cities are followed by their country names (e.g. London, UK or Berlin, Germany). I have a full appreciation for Spain's complex climate, and made the current Koeppen climate classification map for the country. Not sure there's quite another country with as complex of a climate as Spain's. Redtitan (talk) 07:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

What I mean to say in my edit note (I now see it could be a little unclear) is that the city of A Coruña in Spain has a Csb climate, although it barely qualifies as having such a climate. Its summers are just dry enough to be Csb (July and August's monthly precipitation are just below the 40 mm threshold), otherwise it would have a Cfb climate. Sorry for any confusion there. Redtitan (talk) 07:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I understood buddy, no problem. Thanks for letting me see that A Coruña has that kind of climate. Regards --TechnicianGB (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Reconciling Legality of cannabis by country and Legal and medical status of cannabis?

Your feedback invited: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cannabis#Reconciling_Legality_of_cannabis_by_country_and_Legal_and_medical_status_of_cannabis.3F

Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TechnicianGB. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there an agreement?

Regarding WP:AN3#User:Antiochus the Great reported by User:TechnicianGB (Result: ). If agreement was reached, can you link to it? EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello EdJohnston, yes, here it is: Talk:Power (international relations)#Spain. Kind regards! --TechnicianGB (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Climate of Barcelona

Although the map in Iberian Climate Atlas shows (incorrectly) Barcelona area as Csa, according to Köppen's scheme the city has no winter month (December, January, February) with at least three times the precipitation of the driest summer month (July) and so it's Cfa. The problem here is that Catalonian coastal areas have a very wet autumn and a drier winter, so Köppen climate classification might be inadequate.--Carnby (talk) 14:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Carnby: Hello, the climate atlas can't show nothing wrong as AEMET is the most reputated climate agency from Spain, and one of the most reputated in all Europe and the world. They are the most authoritative source on the Climate of Spain.

In the climate classification of Köppen, the "winter" is the half of the year when the sun is down, that means from November to April. Barcelona has a maritime Csa climate bordering on a Cfa climate if we take account of the rainfall from November to April. It's not just December, January and February. Regards --TechnicianGB (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not agree with you. I have the original book (in German) by Köppen. "Fig. 1 stellt diese im Mittel der drei Wintermonate dar, d.h. Dezember, Januar, Februar auf der nördliche, und Juni, Juli, August auf der südlichen Halbkugel" traslation: "Fig. 1 shows this on the average of the three winter months, i.e. December, January, February in the Northern hemisphere, and June, July, August in the Southern hemisphere" (Köppen (1931), Grundriß der Klimakunde, p. 8). So, when Köppen wrote about "Jahreszeiten" he meant them in the traditional way and not "winter from November to April". Besides, even the most authoritative sources can make mistakes (AEMET included).--Carnby (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your edit about snowfall events because they actually happened in the city. Of course, snow on Fabra Observatory and Collserola mountains is even more frequent (last one was on 20 March 2018). Although sources aren't explictly indicated, they're from ordinary press. 92.187.202.193 (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@92.187.202.193: I have explained that you need to provide sources to back up your data which is a main pillar in Wikipedia. Check WP:USING (Wikipedia:Using sources) I have undone your change because you need to prove what you say with sources. I've also undone what you wrote in my talk page but I'm adding it back again to explain you why I undone your change, if it wasn't me then it would probably be someone else, because data in Wikipedia must be properly sourced/referenced. That's how this site works.

: Have you ever been in Barcelona? I bet you haven't. ##angry## 92.187.202.193 (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC) 

Find sources for all of the dates you wrote and it will be all fine. If you can't find for all of them, then write the dates where you have sources and put the source there. Thanks. --TechnicianGB (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"Reverting thrashy edits"

You've reverted this edit of mine for a second time along with a bunch of others: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_European_countries_by_average_wage&diff=767941758&oldid=767901512

I understand there might be a lot of malicious editing on that page, but this is not the case here. I give an official source and data is traceable to it.

Please check references for edits before you presume they are vandalism.

@Haevlock: i'm really sorry, is because there are some users which become autoconfirmed doing small edits just to edit that article among others with trashy data.

Yours is not, sorry, I didn't check it properly, I just looked at the edits of 2 users and not to yours, as yours was the 1st one. There is also other user doing good edits, so I will edit again to put their changes. Thanks for letting me know and sorry! --TechnicianGB (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ffs

Sigh... you still don't get it. Que colgar una imagen no libre por páginas de discusión no es un racional de fair use de acuerdo con un uso limitado del archivo. No es tan difícil de entender, creo. From now on, I hope you understand and refrain from doing it--Asqueladd (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you pretend to leave fair use images on those pages?

Asqueladd (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

En cuántas páginas de discusión ves tú esa imagen puesta por mi ¿? ¿Hay más de 2 acaso? Pues eso, no sé de que estás hablando... Lástima que no haya emoticono de facepalm en Wikipedia. --TechnicianGB (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You are proving to be thick in this issue. ¿Hay más de 2 acaso? The less the better. Talk pages are situations where there is no utmost need to illustrate, so no need to use a fair use file. You can just link to the image if you want to prove something.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria

Hi, TechnicianGB, I invite you to read these official English Wikipedia policies. They state how a non-free image can be used. They can be summarized in a simple way: "use non-free content as less as possible". In particular, non-free content can be used only in the article namespace and only when it's necessary. Yours sincerely --Discasto (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Discasto: ok, i'm ok with the talk pages, I will also remove it from the page talk of Almería. But please, don't remove it again from Climate of Europe, the file necessarily needs to be there, as is an important article and it's the only official file about the climate of the Iberian Peninsula. For the talk pages i'm ok after reading that. --TechnicianGB (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Official Köppen climate classification of Spain maded by AEMET.png

Thanks for uploading File:Official Köppen climate classification of Spain maded by AEMET.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 03:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Valencia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Funny Wikipedia stuff

use |width to make climate boxes smaller. use |width=auto to fit them automatically to the page.

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

--TechnicianGB (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Wages

I added the truth.Those net wages don't consider statal and private benefits that are reported in all other net average wage data.Considering them the numbers should be in 2000 area like for other western european countries.The differences in gdps per capita are explained only by unemployement rates.Thanks for your thanks). Kingofwoods (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kingofwoods: Sure! no problem. Valuable edits are always welcomed. --TechnicianGB (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Soon there could be very very probably a markets stocks crash (a -21% Fibonacci-2000 area S&P500- or a -38% Fibonacci-1565 area S&P500) with also a crash of oil and weak currencies.Have always a check to exchange rates especially of eastern countries,Scandinavia and UK.They all will slide.In the report od April 2019 by IMF of gdp per capita countries with weak currencies (£,AUD,CAD,NZD,HKD,eastern EU currencies,TYR,arab currencies,reais,ruble,rupees,rand,KRW,yuan and so on) will be a disaster.The worst will be TYR,RUB,BRL and INR.CHF will be a ? and yen will be strong.$ will depend on Trump Russiagate.Between 3 years 1€=1.75$ (Cap Gemini) and i agree.Spain could have some new problems with banks but will ask some more money to EU.On the other side € will gain on weak currencies and national Spain gpd will overtake the russian one for istance.Spanish gdp per capita will overtake also similar range not € area gdp per capita (newzealander and korean one for istance),till to join close in the best scenario UK gdp per capita.Kingofwoods (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

No hay de qué ;)

Entiendo que ha sido mucho estrés el estar revirtiendo el vandalismo, yo también lo he sufrido. ¡Un saludo!. Impru20 (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Monday

What will happend on Monday at 10 Madrid time in Catalunya?I need your not partial opinion.Kingofwoods (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kingofwoods: what? I didn't understand your question. It didn't happen nothing, btw. --TechnicianGB (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I hope nothing.I'm against independence of Catalunya.Kingofwoods (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

You are right about fake data on tax calculator for Italian wages.Neither ISTAT publish them.People know just gross income.)If they know.This also because of the strong grey market in Italy."Reddito" when you read "La Repubbllica" newspaper data means income and not wage in italian.It's what is declared to tax agency.Next months i'll contact my friend in ISTAT that is director of ISTAT puclications.He will send me official tables.While waiting i was thinking for Spain and Italy to use the OECD gross wages data and tax calculator for List of European countries by net wage.It'd be valid.Your source of OECD is valid as base to calculate net wages.What's your opinion in changing?I like it.Kingofwoods (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kingofwoods: ok, meanwhile I just changed the other number for the net average wage, I mean I let exactly your edition but I changed the last number to the net wage, as that number was referring to that one. Regards

La Repubblica data are gross incomes before taxes.They are declared in June/July by UNICO and 730 moedel.They include gross wages,private worker incomes,pensions..all.It's not high because of the strong grey market valued by ISTAT around a 15-20%If you need help by me in other articles to defend yourself from bad feith people ask me.I'll help you.You are a very kind and lovely person to talk with).Kingofwoods (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kingofwoods: ok thanks, I say the same! --TechnicianGB (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Good job for wages.As you can see eastern Europe people continuosly vandalize the article in creative way.Yesterday Kriskras edited small what is main for some countries.Kriskras (hungarian or estonian?) and others watching history are always there.I just added again only Monaco net wage.Have also an eye to Switzerland and similar ones, ,they sometimes boost.Really a good job)I've just added on my user page a song by J. Iglesias.I like some of his songs a lot.

Kingofwoods (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, TechnicianGB. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Climate of Spain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Your contributed article, UserTechnicianGB/sandbox

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, UserTechnicianGB/sandbox. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – User:TechnicianGB/sandbox. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at User:TechnicianGB/sandbox. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at [[Talk:User:TechnicianGB/sandbox|the article's talk page]].

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Cahk (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Algeciras, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oceanic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

European wages

1)I'm noticing that eastern countries data are boosted by bad or low level references so the must be stopped.2) I set Trading economics data page that is more than valid source for Italy.3) I don't know what are you talking about doing so. We can leave as it so without starting edit war,but have an eye to stop vandalism.I can't fight alone against hundred people in that article.Bye.LittleOx (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@LittleOx: Trading economics it's not trustworthy and uses gross wages. The actual data uses official data from EUROSTAT. I can support you against the vandalism of the page but the Italian wage shouldn't be touched as it's the only trustworthy source for a net wage, amongst with other countries such as Spain or France. --TechnicianGB (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree ,page is good so,but every day vandalism I mentioned must be blocked.LittleOx (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Award

I appreciate that a lot, you dont know how much. thanks friend--ILoveCaracas (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

De nada ;) --TechnicianGB (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

en mi twitter estan las otras cuentas que tenia antes, esto no es nada de nada con lo que habia hecho, todo por españa man, dale un vistazo si quieres--ILoveCaracas (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

lo malo es que tengo un problema que creo uff (por no decir lo que pasa) que elpais lee pensamientos mios, te pido me respondas algo man si puedes, crees que podria tener algun problema con que no me acepten en españa, por que mi sueño es vivir en un lugarcito de españa, gracias y disculpa la fea pregunta--ILoveCaracas (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

yo tengo esa vaina pero mi mayor aficion es contribuir de la cantidad que lo hago, y no solo eso montaré mi empresa priavada de websites de turismo y banca y depositaré, todo ya lo estoy haciendo--ILoveCaracas (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@ILoveCaracas: ¿Quién no te acepta en España? ¿Cómo es eso? Estamos recibiendo muchísimos Venezolanos exiliados aquí en España y la mayoría encuentran trabajo rápidamente, contando los que ya tenían la nacionalidad española podemos hablar de cientos de miles de Venezolanos en España actualmente. En España la inmigración es muy tolerada y aceptada, especialmente proveniente de Latinoamérica por las raíces y similitudes culturales y lingüísticas. Te recomiendo venir cuando quieras, pues la recuperación económica de España es cada vez más notable y ahora que se acerca el verano, habrán muchas ofertas de trabajo. Si te esfuerzas en ese trabajo de verano, es muy probable que te extiendan el contrato y te lo hagan para todo el año. Si quieres alguna recomendación o ayuda, estoy dispuesto a ayudarte, aunque preferiría hacerlo por algún medio privado entre nosotros 2 ya que no creo que este sea el lugar más adecuado para hablar de algo tan serio. Si tu sueño es vivir en España, eso es algo que me congratula muchísimo y estoy totalmente dispuesto a ayudarte, puesto que en España siempre hay sitio para hermanos latinos. --TechnicianGB (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Gracias de veras amigo, dentro de 2 años me voy para allá con mi viejita y mi hermano, dentro de 2 años hablamos y si hay algun chance de que sea algo más fácil soy capaz hasta de pagarte cuando esté mucho mejor. hablamos en 2 años o menos sobre eso--ILoveCaracas (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

No solamente porque me gusta españa que es el 70% del porqué me quiero ir, sino también porque ya dejó de gustarme mi propio país, coño una empanada que es la segunda comida más popular aquí llevo más de un año que no me la como, igual con las cachapas, 1 año, alla es lo que equivalente en popularidad a un pan con chorizo o una tapa,.. igual con el huevo, con el queso, para que se sepas nada más lo que en verdad pasa por acá, nosotros la familia mía comemos 3 veces al dia, pero como si fueramos unos perros o algo,porque comemos e mismo desayuno, el mismo almuerzo y la misma cena casi todos los dias, conozco gente que vive mejor de lujo de verdad y otros que viven mucho peor que yo, pero es logico que poca gente es la que está mas comoda. todo esto me obstina a mí y a mi familia,y eso que somos gente de clase media, pero no pienses que hago lo de la wikipedia por eso, para nada llevo 5 años ayudando--ILoveCaracas (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Santander, Spain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, TechnicianGB. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful to have met your acquaintance

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Ever think about running for adminship let me know... you got my support! Moxy 🍁 03:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

How is it not a small strip?

Hi again TechnicianGB, you're treating the hardiness zones of Spain like it's a closed deal. The debate is still going. It's obvious there are a lot of errors in that map, and I think you are underestimating the mildness of the Portugal Current in the winter. Please compare both maps and tell me which is the less precise [3][4] and compare the thickness of both lines, northwest and southeast of Portugal, completely different in the map of Spain. That considerable area occupying the municipalities of Tarifa and Algeciras only really surpasses 4.4°C in one of three stations in that area, Punta Carnero, Tarifa almost makes it, Algeciras is nowhere near. That round area around Málaga in reality is just a small dot of a station, the station between the city centre and the airport is 10a so it's obviously UHI. The area this guy marked as 11 is nowhere near the actual area when looking at the station values. I'm also questioning some values, that 6.2°C on Adra, really?. The map of Portugal is very well done, calculated with all that sort of stuff you see on the pdf, altitude, cape or no cape, etc... while the map created by this Spanish engineer doesn't even compare quality wise. He really just a did bunch of dots over stations which shouldn't even be that color to start with, almost completely discounted relief and even rounded official USDA values like he owned the company. The sea temperature and distance from a large mainland are what makes the winter lows in Europe. Portugal has both of those. I'm referencing Portugal just to give you an idea of how hard it is to have an 11a zone out of a city.

Mind you Vila do Bispo and Sagres are not even 11a in the map and have +9°C minima in their coldest month and the lowest recorded at Vila was 1.4°C, but Águilas, which according to AEMET barely surpasses 7.5°C minima is 11a. C'mon how can you even compare the two and put Águilas above? If it was that easy most of the central and southern Portuguese coasts would be 11a, which aren't, for obvious reasons, and before you say it's the negative temperatures that count, San Javier, Murcia has record lows well below negative for five months, and he still put it 10a, which is apparently the same as Faro, Portugal.

I'm not saying only that map is wrong, the data used for the Portugal map was 1971-2000, the 70s and early 80s were very cold in Portugal. It's obvious I would put Faro at 10b for the last 30 years.

And it's obvious too that I can't do nothing about it, but at least I think you can admit that that 11 zone, when only looking at the stations that factually present such temperatures, is very small and restricted mainly to UHI spots, excluding Punta Carnero. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Average Portuguese Joe: My dear friend, it's just your assumption claiming that a full work made with over 35 years of data by an Engineer who has made lots of climate and flora related works (with the help of INM which is nowadays AEMET) is wrong and I can't do nothing about that, but the full work is there with over 100 pages with extended data and it just proves everything, the map is just redundant as it also shows detailed data by regions. In fact I am sure there are more 11a zones in Spain that aren't represented on the map because of the lack of an official station in these areas so I didn't put whats unsourced. Like you, I also know very good the climate of my country just as you know about yours. Yet still I won't add unsourced data, but I'm telling you Spain also has more 11a areas.

The reference is not that low quality photo but a full work as you know already. I've spent too much time explaining and finding proper sources so please not again, I mean I accept your point of view but everything there is carefully explained and properly sourced. Adra having such a warm microclimate doesn't surprise me, during cold spells it's always 2-3ºC warmer than Almería for example, if you don't believe it just watch the AEMET website. It's also a seashore (port) station and Adra is very sheltered by nearby mountains.

I'll explain for the last time... average lows aren't exactly an indicator for hardiness areas, if not La Coruña would be 11a and it's not, just as Tarifa (which has the warmest winter lows in all of Europe) is barely 11a and it did even have quite considerable freezing records in its history, just as Sagres had, and look how mild both places are... Tarifa is in fact considerably milder than Sagres but it also had stronger cold records (although Sagres records are just 1971-2000 and Tarifa's ones are much older) Cádiz has cooler winter lows than Tarifa but they had only one freezing low in all of their history and it was in the great cold spell of 1956 so as you can see this is a perfect proof of how places with warmer average lows can get colder extreme temperatures. Weather is very unpredictable.

I don't think Sagres is 11a as just in January 2021 they had 10 lows under 4ºC with 2 lows under 1ºC and one of 0.5ºC in 12 January. Vila do Bispo yes I do think it's 11a and that's why I left it untouched, but it's very likely to have had lows under 0ºC, since that 1.4ºC is in the 1971-2000 period... too bad we don't have at least 1950-2020 data. Well this is not even relevant, the fact is that the Portuguese map shows an extremely small coastal strip that needs 300x zoom to be seen and I didn't delete the part where it says "two small areas of Portugal are 11a" while you try to nitpick to say small strips of Spain are 11a ignoring the map from the work where it clearly shows they're actually areas and not just "small strips" as the data shows. Assumptions are not valid as a source, but I respect your opinion.

Since there is a trustworthy map backing up the data there is nothing else to discuss. We have talked about this in your talk page, please move on from this subject, we're arguing over a grain of sand, you're more worried to say with millimetric perfection which areas of Spain are 11a and you still didn't find for example other unsourced 11a areas that appear there just as I politely asked you 2 weeks ago but nevermind. Have a good weekend and I hope you'll keep safe! --TechnicianGB (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Recommendations

Hi TechnicianGB! Can you recommend me a good active administrator? There's this user who won't stop making political statements. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Average Portuguese Joe: Hello, I would recommend you to check the list at Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active. But in this particular case, it's better to expose what you've told me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, since that user you told me about has a specific reason to edit Wikipedia (SPA) and his edits are non-constructive, and you have also warned him already. I think the intervention of an administrator is the proper way to solve it. Have a nice day! --TechnicianGB (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Climatología de España y Portugal

Hey, I found a book, or at least the free version of it, called Climatología de España y Portugal [5] and thought you might be interested in this, since it has some older normals for Spanish cities. Also notice in there the normals for Barcelona 1931-1960 (don't know exactly where but at the same altitude as Can Bruixa) which are way off from those you put on the article of Barcelona. That's the difference between a good placement with less UHI and a bad placement with a crapload of UHI. Even with UHI I still don't get those normals... 1931-1960 might seem old, but the temperatures (at least from Portugal) are generally warmer than those from 1961-1990, but you can compare with the El-Prat airport. Cheers! Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@TechnicianGB: As I predicted, and from the 1991-2020 reference you gave [6] the biased source you used in the climate of Barcelona is totally wrong (wow totally unexpected) and these are even more recent! Obviously I never said that it would have the same temps as in the airport (as you're trying to imply) (Read this [7] made back in 2020). Not to be disrespectful but apparently I know more about the climate of a city in your own country than you do. We can assume that that station's average in 1981-2010 would be around 17.0C (-0.4C from 1991-2020) which is actually closer to the airport average, interesting... you still did nothing though, not because those higher values suited you in some way. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Average Portuguese Joe: The Servei Meteorològic de Catalunya, the official meteorological branch of the Generalitat de Catalunya Environmental Department that exists since 1921 is a biased source according to yourself. Do I really need to answer this personal claim of yours? It's like I say if AEMET or IPMA or WMO or any Class-A Meteorology Data are biased. SMC/XEMEC is just Catalonia's AEMET, Catalonia wants to have everything by their own for the good and the bad things, and this is one of the good things.

Why do you think you know everything or more than anyone? You have proven out to know little if anything about the climate of Barcelona (nor its location, microclimates, etc.) the worst thing is that you still deny real facts/data from reliable sources. We have had a long talk. I have inserted that data in 2015 and no one has ever tried to delete it except for yourself. And dozens of people have edited the Climate section since that. Of course, it's an OFFICIAL Meteo GenCat source. The own official source even says the following:

 La serie de Can Bruixa (les Corts) muestra uno de los rasgos climáticos más distintivos del centro de la ciudad, que es la elevada temperatura nocturna causada por la proximidad al mar y la isla de calor urbano.

 Esta combinación tiene como consecuencia que el centro de Barcelona sea uno de los lugares más cálidos del país, con medias mensuales superiores a los 10 ºC durante los meses de invierno y de más de 25 ºC en julio y agosto. 

 L'orígen de les dades meteorològiques i climàtiques d'aquesta web és el Servei Meteorològic de Catalunya.

Oh surprise surprise, they even say that's one of the warmest places in Spain and why (wow totally unexpected, who would say that the most densely populated big city in Europe, extremely sheltered by 2 mountain ranges and with a heavy gulf microclimate would be much warmer than its surroundings?) Of course you couldn't erase this fact and this source/data from Wikipedia because it's a reliable source. You have tried to impose the airport station. I ceded and I have inserted it as well even if the airport is located on another different city with extremely different geographical/orographical conditions (not worthy to explain again what's proven) it's just like if I use Setúbal's data for Lisbon, which is pointless. I have inserted the airport data just to please you and you still put me in doubt?

You gave yourself the right to personally attack me and to make personal assumptions against me. You constantly take Wikipedia too emotionally with kind of an agressive POV (or at least it's what it seems) as you can see I have never done the same towards you. I guess you'll notice up when you'll get older. I have done stupid things online on the past (when I was younger) related to climate/weather but I realized I was wrong. We can't be always right. Enjoy your Weekend. --TechnicianGB (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, on a side note, we will probably have soon the 1987-2021 data for the Barcelona - Can Bruixa station. Meteocat has opened another urban station in 2006 (El Raval) which actually has the same annual mean (18.2ºC) with +0.2ºC warmer highs and -0.1ºC cooler lows, although the means are not properly calculated as they don't use the normal mean (TMm + TNm / 2) but the "Spanish one" which is only used inside of Spain, but that's another thing. The data is only 2007-2016 and that will probably fit in the "others" section of the page Climate of Barcelona with the less important stations. But check the source. Also, take a look at this Tweet they made during the past June you can see that the official Raval station recorded 25.8ºC while the official Can Bruixa one recorded 25.4ºC but that's not the important thing here, look at that chart where they compare the "torrid" night lows and it confirms to be 1987-2021 data, as the Can Bruixa official MeteoCat station started working in 1987 just as you can see. --TechnicianGB (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@TechnicianGB: You just confirmed what I said. Obviously when I say it's not that reliable it doesn't mean it fakes data. As you know, a station can not just be put anywhere, and that's the difference between the station of Catalunya and the station of AEMET. (I've been saying that since 2020 but you apparently don't care).

Compare the station at Sagunto [8] with the station of Valencia [9] (or Cádiz and Rota) to see what I'm talking about, and how major of a difference that makes. The other problem is we don't even know where that station is. Let's just hope that you will grow out of that need to choose something over the other because it's warmer and it fits you. The fact that you used "jealousy" as an excuse just makes your intentions and your bias more obvious. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Average Portuguese Joe: You have said that an Official Meteorology Agency station is "biased" and instead of laughing at such statement, I have found a 2nd official one within Barcelona (El Raval) that gives almost the same numbers, thus it might be "not reliable" by your personal point of view, not as reality goes. Sorry but what? The location of that station is public. As well as El Raval one. Not worth explaining what's already shown. I even shown you meteorologist work regarding the +20ºC summer nights.

As per WP:AGF I have left El Prat Airport station as well, because it's an AEMET one, and it's okay to me as well. But even the Fabra/Montjuic AEMET station at 410 meters above sea level has warmer nights than the airport, isn't that an indicator for you?

I simply don't get why you can't just understand the climate of Barcelona and the many factors that happen there, as proven by meteorologists in the articles/links I've shown you over the past 2 years. As you can see, the annual difference between the stations is actually small, it's just the warmer winter lows that bothered you the most. But the AEMET 1991-2020 data shows very similar lows and an annual average of 17.4ºC which is just 0.8ºC less than the very influenced UHI stations, the 2 Meteocat official ones. Not even 1ºC seems very reasonable. Don't you think so? And the annual mean is barely 1.5ºC higher compared to El Prat Airport 1991-2020 means. It's not like they are worlds apart nor any extreme or unbelievable difference. --TechnicianGB (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

References

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Laurisilva

Lets divide this into two different topics:

Obviously there are remnants of laurisilva, just like in certain parts of the Western Iberia and the Caucasus, but that doesn't make it a laurel forest. You can read the section I wrote a few months ago in Portugal#Biodiversity (2nd paragraph), that is similar to what you cited. I don't remove statements for no apparent reason, if that park truly had a laurisilva forest it would be a major thing, not a "by the way" type of thing. I'm not saying those remnants aren't important, they are quite rare throughout southern Europe, but "remnants" and "forests" are a completely different thing. The flora of that park is exactly the same as flora elsewhere in the Peninsula. For obvious reasons the park is located within the Southwest Iberian Mediterranean sclerophyllous and mixed forests. I'm not discrediting the sources, but they precisely say that there are species of the laurisilva that were once present in Southern Europe in the Tropical Terciary. Look at the distribution section on Rhododendron ponticum for additional info. So if I were you I would leave that "Laurisilva in the Mediterranean" section as it was before.

You got to understand that in a cloud forest, more than 90% (random figure) of the days are completely covered in fog. It is common for forests that are close to the cooler ocean to experience cloudiness / foginess such as the mountains of Sintra, Monchique or Los Alcornocales but, lets be honest, the level of cloudiness you see here in Europe is in no way comparable to the one in Macaronesia, and even then cloud forests are only present in the highest areas. On Pico for example, which has extreme humidity (annual average around 90%) and precipitation year-round (look at Lagoa do Caiado), at that altitude, fully clear days are as common as temperatures hitting 30 °C (86 °F) down below (which is like once or twice a year).

And obviously, if you consider remnants of laurisilva a forest, then don't put them as "the only place in Europe" (especially because it does not say that in either sources). Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Average Portuguese Joe: Hello Joe, well as you can see the sources themselves call it a "laurel forest" as well as "cloud forest" to the small and specific place in Los Llanos del Juncal inside the Alcornocales Park, actually the source I shown you in your talk page (as that one was in English, my official Junta de Andalucía and the University thesis sources are in Spanish) mentions that inside Los Llanos del Juncal, they have around 250 dense foggy days per year, other reliable sources say up to 300 foggy days per year.

I will leave them because they're now properly sourced, if you see it wasn't me who inserted that there, but I get your point of deleting it before my edits because one was unsourced and another one had a dubious blogspot as a source, and that's obviously not acceptable. The thing about being the last and only laurel forest in mainland Europe is actually wrote only in your talk page, not in these pages. I wrote something similar just in Los Alcornocales Wiki page, a page that I doubt it gets more than a hundred views per month, anyways if you urge me to, I can find an acceptable source saying that, because it's documented to be the only laurel forest remnant in mainland Europe from the last big glaciation that happened in what we call Europe today, I know there are some other few spots that have some of these laurel species, but don't form a forest and less a cloud forest, as you can see in addition the University thesis specifically talks about this cloud forest, I've inserted 2 very reliable sources (with 2 is enough) as obviously there is quite a bit of research on this topic, since Los Alcornocales and more specifically Los Llanos del Juncal have a very unique climate for the area they're in and actually, I've first heard of this place about a decade ago. Have a good day! --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@TechnicianGB: Listen I don't have much time now, but this needs to be fixed immediately:

I'm going to leave the cloud forest subject as it is (for now), but I'm sorry, the laurissilva one cannot stay there.

First and foremost, do you really think I use someone's nation as an excuse for leaving irrational edits? I am not telling you to undo your edit because it applies to a different country other than my own. I would do exactly the same if someone put a sourced reference saying mainland Portugal has laurissilva forests, which would be to delete it, as none actual research agrees with that.

The only research-level source you have [10] literally only says that the place is home to species that occupied the whole southern Europe during the Terciary, like Rhododendron ponticum, Laurus nobilis, Ilex aquifolium, and ferns (Culcita macrocarpa, Vandenboschia speciosa) [direct translation]. It does not say that it's the only place in Europe that has this (which obviously would be wrong) and also does not say that these species form a forest consisting entirely or in most part of these individuals. That source literally states what thousands of others state in other spots in Europe (a lot of them nearby in Portugal). And also it is not even focused on the flora itself, it's a study about fungi... So I'm guessing you tried to find this source by typing "Los Alcornocales" and "Laurisilva" together to see if you found anything. That's not how you should search for sources and I'm pretty sure that's a fallacy.

Anyone with a simple background would also tell you that that forest is not laurissilva. Just searching for images, it's obvious the dominant species are cork oak and Pinus pinaster. A perfect example of a forest in the Southwest Iberian Mediterranean sclerophyllous and mixed forests.

But instead of just deleting what you wrote (which is not even what the sources say) I'm going to try and source that section on Laurisilva as best as I can (probably not right now, but maybe next month). Thank you. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Average Portuguese Joe: I don't know from where you took that nation thing up? Anyways, you can't simply delete what is properly sourced and what was there since 2019 just because you don't agree with the source albeit being official itself. The previous deletion of this statement "supported by a blogspot" was okay, not now, with an official Junta de Andalucía source. The 2nd source just states the existence of the cloud forest (which is mainly based on the flora research but mentions the existence of such a cloud forest which you were in constant denial but as you can see it exists, I can provide more sources, but with that reliable one is enough as per WP:RS) the first Junta de Andalucía one talks about laurisilva in Los Alcornocales, the second is more specific on the cloud forest. It wasn't that hard to see it. Also there aren't any "thousands" of sources regarding this, stop over-exaggerating. And with a quick Google search seeking "Bosque de niebla Los Alcornocales" you can find up tons of pics, articles and studies of the cloud forest from Los Alcornocales. Cádiz has a cloud forest. I don't know what's your point on denying this? The laurisilva thing, I admit is not that well documented. But the cloud forest from Los Alcornocales has DOZENS of proper official governmental, botanical and university studies.

I've also never said "it's the only place in Europe that has this" actually I just said that in talk pages, not in the page laurisilva itself. Now that's fallacy imho. You seem to get very emotional sometimes for an unknown reason albeit things are properly sourced up, you can't simply understand how complex are the microclimates found in certain parts of Spain, just as the one that occurs in Los Alcornocales forming a cloud forest. Which is properly sourced. I've said it before, you have to stop making such personal assumptions. Your last edition on my talk page is on the edge of breaking WP:NOPA as you are literally saying I make "irrational edits" just because I have sourced something that was there for years but not properly sourced. --TechnicianGB (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This source, a reputated newspaper, apart from mentioning both laurisilva and cloud forests, it also shows a ton of pictures made inside Los Alcornocales showing up exactly how that's a dense cloud forest. https://www.europasur.es/campo-de-gibraltar/fotos-Bosque-Niebla_3_1566773312.html the pics are real, they're not CGI. As you can see apart from the statement in the first paragraph, the images really show and prove the existence of such a cloud forest. --TechnicianGB (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Banyeres de Mariola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Correction request

Hello.

In the Wikidata page of "2021 Cumbre Vieja volcanic eruption" (Wikidata:Q108601121), can you correct the end date of the volcanic eruption to 13 December 2021, the day it actually ended? The ending was officially confirmed after a waiting period of 12 days. 12 December is not the actual end date of the eruption. The wrong date contradicts the source which was added alongside it: https://www.ccma.cat/324/el-volca-de-la-palma-ja-dorm-el-rastre-de-98-dies-derupcio-del-cumbre-vieja/noticia/3137091/

I cannot do it, because of technical problems on my computer.

Yours sincerely, Multituberculata (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Multituberculata: Hello, now it's properly changed! I've also used an international BBC source written in English. Is there anything else I can help you with? --TechnicianGB (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the correction, updates and new sources! Strangely, other users in that Wikidata page were unreceptive even to this correction request. No, I don't have further requests. All the best. Multituberculata (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Multituberculata: You are welcome! If you need any other help in the future, just let me know! --TechnicianGB (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I would gladly do so, in case there any. Multituberculata (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Weather Box parameters.

Climate data for Seville Airport (1981–2010), extremes (1941–)
Month	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Year
Mean maximum °C (°F)	17.9 (64.2)	22.1 (71.8)	26.2 (79.2)	26.7 (80.1)	31.3 (88.3)	35.3 (95.5)	38.5 (101.3)	37.8 (100.0)	35.1 (95.2)	29.5 (85.1)	24.5 (76.1)	17.6 (63.7)	39.0 (102.2)
Mean minimum °C (°F)	2.1 (35.8)	3.3 (37.9)	6.4 (43.5)	7.1 (44.8)	10.2 (50.4)	15.0 (59.0)	17.3 (63.1)	17.7 (63.9)	15.7 (60.3)	11.6 (52.9)	7.5 (45.5)	4.0 (39.2)	2.1 (35.8)

Climate data for Almería Airport (LEI), 1981–2010 normals; 1933–present extremes
Month	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Year
Mean maximum °C (°F)	18.8 (65.8)	19.4 (66.9)	21.3 (70.3)	23.1 (73.6)	26.0 (78.8)	30.2 (86.4)	32.8 (91.0)	33.0 (91.4)	31.1 (88.0)	26.6 (79.9)	22.9 (73.2)	19.3 (66.7)	33.0 (91.4)
Mean minimum °C (°F)	5.9 (42.6)	6.5 (43.7)	8.1 (46.6)	10.5 (50.9)	12.0 (53.6)	15.7 (60.3)	19.3 (66.7)	20.0 (68.0)	17.2 (63.0)	13.5 (56.3)	10.6 (51.1)	7.6 (45.7)	5.9 (42.6)

Climate data for Málaga Airport
Month	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Year
Mean maximum °C (°F)	19.7 (67.5)	20.6 (69.1)	21.7 (71.1)	23.8 (74.8)	26.0 (78.8)	30.4 (86.7)	32.5 (90.5)	32.3 (90.1)	29.6 (85.3)	26.3 (79.3)	22.4 (72.3)	19.4 (66.9)	32.5 (90.5)
Mean minimum °C (°F)	5.2 (41.4)	5.5 (41.9)	7.5 (45.5)	8.4 (47.1)	11.6 (52.9)	14.9 (58.8)	18.8 (65.8)	19.0 (66.2)	16.8 (62.2)	12.5 (54.5)	9.1 (48.4)	6.3 (43.3)	5.2 (41.4)

Climate data for Cádiz (1981–2010), 1955-2020 extremes
Month	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Year
Mean maximum °C (°F)	17.6 (63.7)	19.3 (66.7)	21.8 (71.2)	22.1 (71.8)	24.8 (76.6)	28.0 (82.4)	30.1 (86.2)	31.4 (88.5)	28.7 (83.7)	25.6 (78.1)	22.9 (73.2)	18.1 (64.6)	31.4 (88.5)
Mean minimum °C (°F)	7.0 (44.6)	6.8 (44.2)	10.7 (51.3)	11.7 (53.1)	13.9 (57.0)	16.7 (62.1)	19.5 (67.1)	20.4 (68.7)	17.8 (64.0)	14.6 (58.3)	11.1 (52.0)	8.6 (47.5)	6.8 (44.2)

I've deleted the data inserted at the "avg record low/high" parameter. Each parameter of the template has a single meaning and should be consistent between Weather Boxes. In the same way you put the record high data on the record high parameter and not the average high parameter, you don't put data that means one thing into a parameter that means other. As an example, let's look at the month of July. The average record high parameter is defined as "the highest temperature to be observed in July" (or to put it simply: the average record high of July) and not "the average high of the hottest July recorded", the data that AEMET provides, which is obsolete with the parameters that the template has.

If you're afraid of somehow "losing" the data, I've made the effort to put that data here. (In the same way you deleted and pasted the 1 incomplete year data of the Savage Isles to my talk and I made no intentions to start a war because I listened to your motive and it seemed reasonable).

If you still beg to differ with the template parameters you should not revert the edit, but instead write an admin about it, as the problem is centered around the template, not the edit in itself. If he agrees with you, the template will be edited accordingly. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Average Portuguese Joe: Well, the Savage data was just one year and incomplete. I have seen you have inserted some full 3 year data in the Savages page which I think is better than nothing. Albeit as I said that time since you have worked by yourself to gather that data, it's not right just to delete it but rather put it on that editor's talk page. Just as you have done with this data. I agree since they don't specifically match that Weather box parameter, although it was the closest parameter to that data.

So since I agree with you, I have inserted them back by the proposed example we agreed on your talk page few months ago. I will also add the same data for other Spanish cities when I'll gather some free time, including central and mountainous cities. The most correct parameter for that data is the normal averages instead of the extremes, as they're actually averages, as long as it's properly specified on the title. But they have to be in a separate weather box, I agree. --TechnicianGB (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Mentioned

Hello TechnicianGB. You were mentioned at User talk:EdJohnston#Edit-war on "Laurel forest" article. I advised that the disagreement should be discussed at Talk:Laurel forest. EdJohnston (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Reference contradiction and peer reviewed sources.

Please make sure to read word by word of what I wrote:

A reliable source is not an "official source". Junta de Andalucia is an "official" entity of the government... You're using "official" like it's the World Wide Fund for Nature (entities that are actually based on nature conservation). That's literally like choosing the "official" page of the Norte Region over Quercus, florestas.pt [11] or ICNF to know details about the forest there. Spain definitely has an equivalent to ICNF. Why don't you go there to learn about the actual forests in your country instead of typing "laurisilva" + "Spain" to see if you find something?

Junta de Andalucia can therefore write whatever comes thru their mind (doesn't even have to cite who wrote it). A research paper, however, is much different in the way that it's peer reviewed. Your source is not peer viewed, so needless to say it is not adequate in that sense.

Even if you assume your source is at the same level as mine (which clearly it is not), there is distinctly a contradiction between the sources. Please stop saying they don't disagree when you didn't even read them. There's even a documentary I found today which broadcasted on RTP and where a botanist literally says, and I'm making the effort to translate it for you: "In the case of Madeira and, in particular, of the Laurissilva, what we have is a result of the arrival, success and incredible history that is still to be told in much of its part of botanical species which adapted... which once existed in Southern Europe, and went extinct due to the Quaternary glaciations, but luckily their natural "emigrants", so to speak, that came to Madeira and to the Macaronesian Islands (Madeira, Azores, Canaries, Cape Verde) managed to resist and evolve into forests very similar to those that supposedly existed in Southern Europe and went extinct with the Quaternary glaciations" [12] (1:50–2:31 on Youtube)

I won't put that documentary as a source because I prefer to cite peer-reviewed journals.

So, clearly, the best option in these cases would be to put what both sources agree on, which is that that range is habitat for ojaranzo or adelfeira in Portuguese aka Rhododendron ponticum, amongst other things that are already written.

As a note: the text of your source refers to Laurisilva as "flora". Laurisilva is not a type of flora. The author of the text is either confusing terms or he actually means that. In that case the author wouldn't be referring to an actual forest, but to individuals which were once present in the Tertiary Laurisilva of Europe and that survived since then, which are literally spread throughout Europe today, therefore agreeing with every source I've found. Average Portuguese Joe (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Average Portuguese Joe: Look, I agree with you and I won't insert that again. But one thing, Los Alcornocales Natural Park should be specifically mentioned on that page since it has the biggest and best preserved relicts of Laurisilva in Europe (locally called canutos de Cádiz, there are UMA and UGR sources about this) look at the edit I made right now based on a scientifical research made by biologists from the Universidad de Málaga (from the journal Acta Botanica Malacitana 24, A.V. Pérez Latorre et al. 1999) I accept NOT putting it as a laurel forest, but keep something in mind, on the other article (cloud forest) Los Alcornocales can never be deleted as it factually forms a cloud forest in Los Llanos, and there are even biological sources that confirm the existence of cloud forests inside Los Alcornocales, even this scientifical journal made by several biologists from the UMA specifically mentions the existence of such a cloud forest in the page 136 of the work. Just for the sake of it I accept your edits given your extended reply and your acknowledge on the topic. Here you have the work regarding my last edit: http://www.biolveg.uma.es/abm/Volumenes/vol24/24_PerezGalanNavas.pdf I hope this is remains solved for both of us. --TechnicianGB (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Barrio san Francisco (Inca)

Hi!!, please, can you translate this page https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrio_de_San_Francisco_(Inca) to english wiki?. THANKS!!!!!! happy new year!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonnobis2013 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)