Open main menu

DYK for Irish Landmark TrustEdit

 On 25 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Irish Landmark Trust, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Irish Landmark Trust renovates historic houses, castles, and lighthouses, and then offers them as holiday rentals? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Irish Landmark Trust. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Irish Landmark Trust), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

CopyrightEdit

Using term copyright to cite factually released books and US Navy publications rather than random websites. Appreciate websites, but many are not citing work. VM321 (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Rocketrosy. I must be misunderstanding what you are saying. Because what I seem to be reading is that you believe that, unless something is copyrighted, then it is not a reliable source. Is that what you are saying? That "only books" are reliable sources?
If so, I would recommend you read WP:RS. While the RS guidelines favour books from reputable publishers over content from other and self-published websites, the copyright status of the work is not the determining factor there. A copyrighted work is not inherently more reliable than an uncopyrighted work. '50 Shades of Grey' is a copyrighted work. That doesn't make it a reliable encyclopedic source :)
If dismissing or removing a source or sourced content, then please reference the relevant Wikipedia guideline. Like that on reliable sources. Rather than a personal judgement based on whether or not the author copyrighted it. Which has no relevance to reliability. Guliolopez (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello, When I first starting building several of these pages, I was told repeatedly I had to have accurate sources, not facebook groups, not websites. So I really have been trying to follow this to the letter of the law. Many times websites state inaccurate information so I tend to go to government sources, particularly when it comes to US Naval Aviation. I'm not on here very much - but really wanted to offer factual insight. Thank you very much Rocketrosy (talk)

Help on page Muire na CríostaíochtaEdit

Hi Guliolopez,

I am a contributor mainly to the French Wikipedia, and I have noticed you have contributed to the article Muire na Críostaíochta (Pilgrimage to Chartres) in Irish. I have renamed that article from Notre-Dame de Chrétienté, the organizing association, because the pilgrimage has more notability than the association in itself. I was wondering if you could make the changes also to Wikipedia in Irish ? Thanks in advance, Tpe.g5.stan (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Scrabo TowerEdit

I am a novice and eager to learn from such an experienced wikipedian as you. You commented your recent corrections on edits I made to the Scrabo Tower article with "Copyedits. Not every sentence needs its own section. Temper introduced editorial and NPOV". I admit that I used too many headings. I do not understand what "Temper introduced editorial" means. I found out what NPOV means in Wikipedia and understand why I should not have written "visitors enjoy...". Thank you so much for your edits and guidance. I understand that this (your talk page) is the right place for my chatting and I hope I am not bothering you. Johannes Schade (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Johannes Schade:. You are not bothering me. No problem. I am glad to help. As you have read WP:NPOV, you might also want to read WP:WTW. And WP:EDITORIAL in particular. While trying to write a paragraph or sentence in a way that "makes sense" for the reader, we can sometimes inadvertently come to conclusions on their behalf. I have been guilty of writing like this in the past. But now recognise why this should be avoided. (For example, perhaps accidentally, suggesting that a reader should find something "notable". When perhaps the reader is perfectly capable of coming to their own conclusions. Generally it is best to avoid saying something like "Notably Smith was the first to juggle cats". When "Smith was the first to juggle cats" is perfectly fine. And lets the fact [if it is one] to stand on its own merits.) Generally speaking, and without writing in a completely 'boring' way, we should avoid being too flowery or leading or promotional in our language. Happy editing. Guliolopez (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I will follow your suggestion and read the Wikipedia Manual of Style. I am very glad about your photo. Johannes Schade (talk) 10:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Thank you very much for promoting the article to Class C and Mid Importance! I am very pleased. I admit that the narrative about Charles was too long and the article needed refocusing on Scrabo Tower. Your edits achieved this very well. Perhaps I should add some of the discarded material to the article about Charles so that readers who want to understand why Napoleon III subscribed can find that information there. As you probably saw, I referred to the BBC Pronouncing Dictionary for the pronunciation of Scrabo. I am a bit worried whether this does not violate intellectual property rights. If all Wikipedia articles about places in the UK take their IPA pronunciation from this source, which they probably should do, a high percentage of the content of this dictionary will be reproduced in Wikipedia. I am also a bit worried about the picture of the watercolour of the tower in the frame, which I downloaded from the National Trust Collection website and uploaded to Wikicommons, pretending that the watercolour is more than 100 years old and that the photographs is just a reproduction and carries not copyright. What do you think about it? With many thanks Johannes Schade (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. RE:
  • C Class - No problem. In honesty it should be a "B Class". But the lead doesn't fully represent the body. It is too short. If the lead is not expanded in the natural course of things, I will do it myself. And then reassess.
  • Discarded material - Yes. If the content about Charles is not covered in the article about Charles, then please add it there. That is where it belongs.
  • Pronunciation - I would not worry about this. I do not share your concern.
  • Watercolour - I share your concern here. The EXIF data and source both suggest that the National Trust (and/or the photographer or the artwork) asserts some rights over this image. Or at least this version of it. (The watercolour is almost certainly out of copyright. That photograph of the watercolour may not be.) I would recommend removing it. Pending permission or clarification on the copyright status. You could email the National Trust if you think it is worth the effort.
Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Dear Guliolopez! Thanks for another round of corrections. I a still learning such a lot from you, for example not to abbreviate cardinal points. You asked me two questions: "Do we have a ref to support the suggestion that 'keeping up with the Joneses' was a factor? Or is this retrospective commentary?" I have not invented this, but some guesswork is probably involved. I read somewhere (I must find out where that was) that the Marchioness of Dufferin called Scrabo the 'copycat tower'. The article in the Dublin Builder says "size and mass were the chief objects", meaning the Londonderries wanted it big. Ideally, I would need a citation that says that the Londonderries wanted it bigger than the Dufferins' tower. I do not have such a quote and it might not exist. Does this mean that I cannot say it, or would it be acceptable if I formulated it more cautiously? Johannes Schade (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Another subject: Gaeilge. I am a foreigner living in Ireland and do not know Irish. It seems you are an expert. I found sources mentioning two possible origin of Scrabo: screabach and scraith bó. One funny thing is that the source, which is handwritten, reads scraiz instead of scraith. I heard that Irish does not use the letter z. Could you please have a look at what I wrote? I understand you want to concentrate on another project that you call GA (good article?). Possibly, you could refer me to another Wikipedian who is an expert in Irish? With many thanks Johannes. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Johannes Schade. Thanks for your note. On each point:
  1. Copycat. Ideally, yes, there would be a reference or quote to support the suggestion that this was their intention. Even a comment by a reliable third-party commentator (not you or I) that this was a possible intent would be preferable to nothing. ("The Dublin Builder stated that size was a key goal, and historian Joe Bloggs suggested this was because X").
  2. Gaeilge. I saw what you wrote. Personally I would simplify it (I don't think we need to give the reader instructions on how to click through to read the hand-written logainm.ie sources). In terms of the letter, that is not a "z". It is a "t" (in Irish script) with a "dot" over it. That dot, when placed over a consonant, makes it a lenited consonant. In short, if you see a "t" with a dot over it, it should be read as "th". "Scraith". Meaning the hand-written note reads "Scraith Bó". (Compare the "dot" in Irish to the "two dots" in a German umlaut. It changes the sound of the letter it accompanies). Anyway, I will take a stab at simplifying the text. (FYI - I'm not sure where you saw the reference to "GA". Typically, if you see "GA" used on this project, it is short-hand for "good article". However, if it was I who used "GA", then that is probably short-hand for Gaeilge. GA is the ISO 639-1 code for Irish/Gaeilge. Compare "DE" for German. "EN" for English. So, it was myself who used "GA", I probably meant Irish/Gaeilge. It it was someone else, they probably meant Good Article).
Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  The Original Barnstar
You are a champion! Johannes Schade (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


DrombegEdit

So I understand I put a water mark in the picture, correct? I was confused by the message (I though someone else uploaded again the picture with a watermark). If I indeed put a watermark in the picture, I will remove it (normally I don't do that!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vreijs (talkcontribs) 11:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Vreijs. As you note, I was not asking you to consider adding another (new) watermark. I was asking you to consider removing or reducing the current (existing) watermark. The current (large and blue) watermark is obtrusive ("noticeable or prominent in an unwelcome or intrusive way"). For example, your Commons image cannot really be used on Wikipedia - because the watermark is so large and obvious that it impacts the other (aesthetic) value of the image. Or, to put it plainly: your image would be nice - if it did not have the ugly watermark. The Commons project guidelines allow for visible but unobtrusive watermarks. If you do not want to remove the watermark entirely, then at least think about making it smaller. And less obvious. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Vreijs: I believe the image in questions is c:File:County Cork - Drombeg stone circle - 20150328102444.jpg. Because you have released the image under a free licence someone could crop out the watermark or retouch it out, but in each case it would be preferable if you would please just reupload a new image without the watermark. We would really appreciate it. Thank ww2censor (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13Edit

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Listowel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to John Montague, Richard Murphy, Patrick McGrath, Douglas Kennedy, Lloyd Jones, Joseph O'Neill and Hugo Hamilton

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

For all your good work at the Glenbeigh article, just for starters. Kafka Liz (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Cork City Page EditEdit

Hi Guliolopez, I published an image of mine to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cork_(city). I understand I should have verified that it's non-restricted for use. Thank you for clarifying the need for this. I'm in the process of releasing it to Creative Commons. Please let me know if that is the only reason for your edit and if I replace the image once it has been verified that it won't be removed? Thanks. Architecture should not be owned by anyone, because it should be for everyone. 12:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul James Lee (talkcontribs)

Hi Paul James Lee. There are two main guidelines/policies governing images:
  1. Image copyright - Which expects that an image "copyright holder has released the image under an acceptable free license". Given that the image was previously published (by you?) under a non-free/Commons-incompatible licence ("© Viewsion Virtual Environments & NU Millenium Digital Technologies 2014"), evidence of a change of licence is required. This can be covered (with proof of ownership and change of licence) via OTRS on the Commons project.
  2. Image placement - Which expects that an image "increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article". Given that there are already several other maps included in (or linked from) the article, I'd personally question whether an additional map adds to the reader's understanding. Not least as (with the surrounding whitespace and broad scope of the map image), a reader would have to "click into" the map to understand its scope or content. Something already met via the other maps/map links (aligned with the WikiProject Maps and WikiProject Geo Coords projects). What, in your opinion, does this new map provide, which assists with reader's understanding, beyond what is already included/linked?
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── --Architecture should not be owned by anyone, because it should be for everyone. 21:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your response. I submitted the image in Wikimedia and had it verified as being my own work and copyright free. Here's the link: Cork City 3D Map

I propose to place the map in the section called "places of interest". The map was is created for the very purpose of indicating the locations of places of interest in Cork City. There are no other maps that convey this information. I'm not sure how this wouldn't be seen as relevant? The image is an original work containing a huge amount of visual information.

Architecture should not be owned by anyone, because it should be for everyone. 21:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul James Lee (talkcontribs)

Hi. On the points you raise.
  1. "Architecture should not be owned by anyone, because it should be for everyone". A nice sentiment. Clearly heartfelt. However, while I don't disagree with the sentiment, I don't understand the relevance to this discussion.
  2. "My own work and copyright free". Cool. Glad you sorted that out.
  3. "There are no other maps that convey (places of interest in Cork)". None? That's a particularly dramatic claim. Not least given the existence of other maps of the city (including those already added-to or linked-from the article. In a manner already aligned with the project's mapping conventions.) Personally I'm not aware of any other similar article which uses a non-standard map to pinpoint a relatively select sample of buildings in the article (For example, the inclusion of buildings not mentioned in the section (like webworks), or the exclusion of key buildings which are mentioned in the section, may add more to the reader's confusion than to their understanding).
  4. "Original work containing a huge amount of visual information". Indeed. It does include a huge amount of information. And a significant white border. To the extent that, if added to the page, it cannot be read. Not without "clicking on it". And, even then, not without "zooming into it".
Personally I don't see it. It doesn't follow the mapping conventions, cannot be viewed in place, has unclear inclusion criteria, and is generally not of the form typically used to illustrate city articles on the project. Don't get me wrong. It's a nice map. I like it. A lot in fact. But not for inclusion, in-line, within the article. Guliolopez (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

RosscarberyEdit

Just noticed that in 2016 you reverted an edit(not mine), thinking a reference to the Catholic church, St Fachtna's , was redundant, as previously mentioned. The previous reference was to the Protestant church. They are both dedicated to St. Fachtna. I made a similar edit today.2001:BB6:9509:6358:C8C3:496D:5152:ED20 (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC) Sorry, thought I was logged inAineireland (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Grand job. Fair enough. Happy to see it (re)added. Guliolopez (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Great IslandEdit

 On 25 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Great Island, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the single road bridge to Great Island in Cork Harbour is more than 200 years old? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Great Island. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Great Island), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

PreciousEdit

Irish landmark trust

Thank you for quality articles around Irish topics, from Cork Jazz Festival and Mellows Bridge in 2005 to Irish Landmark Trust and Great Island in 2018, including categories and images, for service also in other languages, for recovery from frustration and for patiently explaining, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Guliolopez. 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)

80.111...Edit

80.111... my Apollo-sense is tingling... ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

'Broken'/'Unbroken'Edit

Please AGF. I have no idea if they should or shouldn't be. I'm just checking the links and finding them transcluded. There are no more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:A2E:B158:2835:17EE:2763:728F (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I did/do assume good faith. I'm unclear what in my edit summary would have indicated otherwise. As noted however, it is perhaps best to investigate and/or fix the problem than to potentially add incorrect or misleading templates. (Two wrongs and all that). If that's the last one, then that's grand. All sorted. Guliolopez (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

SeasonsEdit

  Gothic Seasons Greetings  
Wishing you all the best for x-mass, hope it is a time of cheer. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
And many happy returns! Guliolopez (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

RevertsEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Profile blocked as one of at least 48 others operated by disruptive sockmaster (DNFTT)

Can you explain why you think a law concerning imports is not economic regulation? Is English not your first language. I'm worried this may be a competence issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YusufAdnan (talkcontribs)

Because it is not a law. A bill is not a law. I have moved the content to Ireland–Israel relations. Where it more properly belongs. And reworded it slightly to reflect the difference between a bill and a law. (Which I understand. Because English is my first language. And because I am Irish. And understand our legislative process. Quite well. Thank you.) Guliolopez (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Then it's a clear competence issue because what you said in your edit summary was "It's not an economic regulation", not "it's not a law yet", which I would have understood. The responsibility to communicate in English is all you. To avoid further miscommunication, all I will say is it is fully expected to become a law and if you think waiting for the completion of this formal process is important, I will self-revert until then. YusufAdnan (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
RE: "Waiting". Fine. I will accept that.
RE: "Competence issue". You have had ample opportunity to temper those comments which are contrary to WP:AGF and WP:NPA. I will not continue to accept that.
Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
You said "regulation". You meant "law". Calling that a "competence issue" is not a personal attack, it's a fact. Poor communication does not mean you are malicious. But it did provoke a relatively minor dispute that was easily resolved when explained your reasoning clearly above. However, something like this could have gotten much worse, especially after you decided to continue reverting for the given reason: "Nope". No matter how much you try to blame others, the fault for that is yours. YusufAdnan (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm quite happy with my understanding of editing etiquette, use of edit summaries, and the related policies. At least to the extent that I'm not overly interested in being schooled by a profile that existed for all of 2 hours before questioning the "competence" of another's edits. If want to continue to discuss content, then I'm happy to do so on the relevant talk page. I think we're otherwise 'done' with the finger pointing. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why you think the length of time I have been here means I have to be more polite to you then you are to me. I'm happy to discuss content on talk pages in the future, but I'm also quite satisfied with my ability to read and understand sources, in general. I know I haven't been here for 10 years or anything, but what in the fuck is "WP:UNDUE in this form" supposed to mean anyway? YusufAdnan (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
That level of mischaracterisation of what I have done/said is entirely unsurprising coming from a sock. Not wasting time/breath responding. DNFTT. Guliolopez (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

OmeathEdit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Another sock. Same master. Sigh.

Don't removed cited content with an edit summary that it is "uncited" again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheYellowRoses (talkcontribs) 22:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your note. As your concerns relate to the content of a particular article (and as you have kindly opened a thread there), I will respond there. Otherwise, as a new editor, if you have any more general questions, I am happy to cover them here. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Duh...Edit

[1] - Absolutely. I'm not usually that stupid. I blame lack of coffee. Thanks for fixing it. -- Begoon 03:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!Edit

[2] - Thanks for the fix. Somewhat new to Wikipedia, helps a tonne. Zer0thenumber (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!Edit

Hi Guliolopez, I wanted to thank you for helping me edit the Madison, WI page. I am new to Wikipedia, so writing in an NPOV tone that is devoid of puffery does not come natural to me. I read through all of the pages that you wrote in the comments, and realized that I still have quite a lot of changes I need to make to write in a suitable manner for Wikipedia. I hope you understand. I also wanted to thank you for your patience and time in helping to make a few of my edits more suitable for the platform. Best, Thefactmanirud (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Changhua Senior High SchoolEdit

Hi Guliolopez,

Thank you for leaving the message, so I can communicate with you. In Taiwan, junior high school students attend a national exam and choose their high school accroding to their scores. The senior High Schools which have many famous alumnus, graduates entering top universities, long history, and traffic convenience usullay become the first choice of junior high school students. Students have to get high scores so that they can be admitted. Most of those prestigious school are single-sex and established during Japanese rule. Jianguo High School, Taipei First Girls' High School, National Hsinchu Senior High School, Cheng Kung Senior High School in Northern Taiwan, Taichung Municipal Taichung First Senior High School, National Changhua Senior High School in Middle Taiwan, and National Chiayi Senior High School, National Tainan First Senior High School, Kaohsiung Municipal Kaohsiung Senior High School in Southern Taiwan are examples. Every year, the news report the students entering the schools mentioned above.[1] [2] [3] I am willing to make Wiki more detailed and the sentences I wrote was objective. Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poseidonperseus (talkcontribs) 11:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


Hello. Thank you for your note. None of the links or sources that you provide support a claim that National Changhua Senior High School is "one of the most outstanding high schools in Taiwan nowadays". Or "one of the top schools in Changhua County". Or "one of the most prestigious and distinguished high schools in Middle Taiwan". They do not use these terms at all. Even if the sources you provide *did* use those terms, then it would be an opinion. A subjective statement. That would require attribution. "According to XYZ report". Or "According to a survey of 123 parents". Or similar. Please do not restore unreferenced statements, unsupported promotion and unattributed opinions. Not without spending some time to address the concerns raised. Guliolopez (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Blanchardstown- photosEdit

Do the photos on the Blanchardstown page that you reverted recently have to be so small? I wanted them to be the same width as the box on the top right of the page and I believe they looked good as the same width as that are now *too* small. Darren J. Prior (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Darren J. PriorDarren J. Prior (talk) 05:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Per WP:IMGSIZE, the width of thumbnails is determined by policy or user preference. If you want images to display larger for you, then perhaps best to update your prefs. Otherwise, per the convention and guideline, except with very good reason, do not use px, which forces a fixed image width. ("I'd like it if they matched the infobox width" doesn't, to my read, seem to be a good reason to override everyone else's preferences...) Guliolopez (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) In Blanchardstown, as in all other articles, the infobox image size is controlled by the infobox template code, while, when there is no infobox, the WP:LEDE image may be a bit larger but only if warranted and is controlled by the "upright" setting of the image syntax. The unforced image size within the prose is controlled by your own preferences and is found under the Appearance menu and fixed pixel sizes should not be used. ww2censor (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

MoselleEdit

Hi Guiliolopez, thanks for your efforts to clean up Wikipedia. However, when you edited Moselle, you removed the word "popular" as a POV. Whether something is popular or not is a fact and tourist organisations and civil authorities publish figures on visitor numbers which are a hard indicator of popularity. In the light of that you may wish to consider restoring those words (the rest of the edit's fine). Bermicourt (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks also to you for your own efforts on Wikipedia. I removed the statements in that article (about "two of the many popular tourist attractions" or that "[X] is a particularly popular tourist destination"), as they were/are not supported by any references of any kind. If there were references to support the claims of the kind that you suggest (popularity adjudged based on number of visitors, or "ranking", or reviews or similar), then I would not have removed the statements as POV. As they would not have been POV. They would have been a verifiable fact. But they are statements unsupported by any verifiable references or stats of the type you suggest. And hence can only be read as POV. If you are aware of sources that support the assertions, then I will happily support the restoration of the claims. I am not happy to restore uncited claims and unsupported statements and unattributed POV. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

30em is the default?Edit

But when you changed it in Silver Wedding (novel), the reference list goes across my entire screen. When I set it at 30em, I get two columns, which is much easier to read. Yoninah (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Yoninah. With apologies if my edit summary was overly brief (to the extent that I didn't explain my rationale fully), but what I was attempting to note was that, when the list gets long, it will wrap (to the default of 30em) anyway. (Because there are only 9 refs it possibly doesn't happen automatically now, but if there were more than 10, you would see the multi-column default "kick in"). If you want to restore the force wrapping, then that's fine with me. But, generally speaking though I'm not sure we need to force reflists into a multi-column set-up. When there aren't a lot of refs. (A list with a small number of refs for example looks, to my eye at least, a little odd when "manually" bunched into two columns). Guliolopez (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I'll leave it your way and see how it looks on other pages with more refs. Yoninah (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

VisitScotland updateEdit

Hi. Thanks for the information. I can make the change to my username as you advise. As you can tell I am new to editing Wikipedia but I would say that the information in my edit is accurate and comprehensive and the previous information was incorrect so a bit confused about what was wrong with the copy in the edits. Clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, Anna VisitScotlandCorp (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VisitScotlandCorp (talkcontribs) 14:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello.
RE: "change to my username". Great.
RE: "clarification would be appreciated [..] about what was wrong with the copy". I provided specific clarification of the concerns with the proposed edits on the relevant article's talkpage. Namely that the text added included promotional, first-person and copyrighted content that seemed intended to serve the interests of a specific organisation more-so than to serve the interests of this project or of the reader.
RE: "information was incorrect". If you want to highlight inaccuracies with the existing text, then please do so at the VisitScotland article talkpage. If doing so, then be specific, and provide references for what is "incorrect" and what the correct text could/would be. Otherwise, editors are strongly discouraged from directly editing articles with which they have a specific and declared association.
Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Guliolopez".