User talk:Oliver Bernaz

Welcome! Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 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

May 2018
Hello. Please do not use canned edit summaries which are inaccurate or misleading. Edit summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Removing a cleanup tag is not "fixing a typo". Replacing one reference/link with another is not "fixing a typo". Adding new/additional text is not "fixing a typo". Please take the 3 seconds required to add an accurate edit summary. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
Hello. Me again. Similar topic. Again. As all of your edits have been to the same/single article, you may not be aware of the broader project goals and policies. I will therefore highlight three key policies for you. If you continue to edit in a manner which conflicts with these policies, I will seek additional escalation. Including TBAN escalation. In short: If a pattern of edits continues, in conflict with the above policies and guidelines, then it will suggest that you are not here for the purpose of building neutral, reliable, verifiable content. In which case you'll be asked not to contribute. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 08:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * WWPIN. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or LinkedIn or otherwise a forum for promoting a person or other subject. Using unqualified promotional language or unattributed opinion is inappropriate under these guidelines. (Like describing someone's work as "ground breaking" without attributing that subjective statement, or the opinion it describes, to the person who holds it.)
 * VER. Wikipedia content must be verifiable. Adding statements which are unverified or unverifiable is inappropriate under the related guidelines. Unless supported by auto-biographical sources, personal opinions or "feelings" are unverifiable almost by definition. That someone "enjoys leisure activity X" or "was brought up with values A, B and C" is not only unencyclopedic ("enjoys hiking" falling into the NOTLINKEDIN/NOTFACEBOOK category), but against related VER policies.
 * COI. Wikipedia contributors are, if they have a close association with a subject, advised to consider declaring it. And/or to consider avoiding editing articles associated with that subject. For the reasons noted above. And others.

Accurate reflection of sources
Hi. I'm curious. Why, when the linked sources clearly and verifiably describe the positions under discussion as "appointed" roles, did you decide instead to refer to them as "elected" roles? You didn't use any edit summary to explain your change, so I will ask you here instead. Why did you change the text? So that it no longer accurately reflected the sources? Guliolopez (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

January 2024
Hello, I'm Guliolopez. I noticed that you recently made an edit to Surya Subedi in which your edit summary did not appear to describe the change you made. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.

Please also note that the term "minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia and refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Please do not describe edits as minor when they do not meet that definition. And please do not describe, effectively, every single one of your edits as such.

Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)