User talk:Glasgowfinder

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --John (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. --John (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.Ben W Bell talk 14:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing concerns

Hi again Glasgowfinder. I notice you blanked the contents of your talk page here. That is fine, it is your space. I also noticed your continued attempts to change the population of Glasgow. Can I suggest that rather than repeatedly editing the article you instead start a discussion at Talk:Glasgow? We work here by consensus and reliable sources. In addition you should be aware that we have a very strict rule prohibiting repeated edits adding the same information to articles. "Edit-warring" is very strictly prohibited here. Just a word to the wise; if there is anything I can do to help you, please let me know. Best wishes, --John (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. You may have a point. However, the content of the article on Glasgow is not for me (or you) to decide; can I again suggest taking your proposal to Talk:Glasgow? --John (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that you restored a section that was referenced by a dead link. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of this info, but I think you should provide a working reference for it in the interests of verifiability. I'm going to caution you too against making edits like this one; never change another user's words like that. Best wishes to you, once again. --John (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Population of Glasgow and Greater Glasgow

Hi there,

I thought I'd better explain what was going on! Whilst Greater Glasgow is an official Urban Area, the data you have linked to is for something called the "Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Conurbation", which appears to have different boundaries to the official area. In addition, I've removed your link to the relevant document in the population of Glasgow itself as the two don't match - plus the one in your document is for the Glasgow City Council area, which isn't the same as the settlement of Glasgow itself. The data in the table is from 2001, so doesn't need the reference tagging.

It's not easy to see the difference between the settlement and local authority area with Glasgow, it's easier to see with, say, Leeds where the Urban Area of Leeds itself is a lot smaller than the area of Leeds City Council (which includes large rural areas and other separate towns); and Reading where the Urban Area spills outside the local authority boundaries into former rural areas.

In addition to that lot, you can't compare two different sets of data and come up with a ranking. To take an extreme example, you wouldn't compare the 2001 population of Glasgow to, say, the 1971 population of Edinburgh. Fingerpuppet (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Leeds

Hi again. Please review WP:NPOV and WP:V and bear them in mind in future when editing articles, particularly those on cities. Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)