Jump to content

User talk:Gilderien/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

IP

HI OwenX
 Before logging in this morning I was informed I had new messages. This link directed me to a talk page where there were allegations of sockpuppetry. Obviously, I take sockpuppetry very seriously, but why have I been directed here? Thanks Gilderien (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The IP address you were assigned by your ISP this morning was used, four years ago, by a disruptive editor who employed sockpuppetry for vandalizing Wikipedia. As a registered user, this should not affect you in any way. Feel free to ignore any such messages you get before logging in, as long as you do all your edits while logged in. Owen× ☎ 13:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Do this mean that if the IP is used again by that user, and then blocked, I will still be able to edit if I am logged in? --Gilderien (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, in all likelihood, you will be. Most IP blocks only affect non-registered users. Owen× ☎ 20:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Contributions

Hi Gilderien, Interesting remark. No, I don't know why your edits show under my name. I am currently patrolling recent changes, so if you are too, and we both revert changes at the same time, maybe do my edits sometimes arrive to WP before yours. Hence, my name will be registered for the modification. Could that be a reason? In addition, could you direct me to the exact pages which you think that might of happened? Thanks! Xionbox₪ 09:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Dear Gilderien,

Thank you for awarding me a barn star for my activity here on Wikipedia. I have just created a subpage, User:Xionbox/Awards, whereto I moved that barn star. Thank you again for this barn star, which I greatly appreciate.

Xionbox₪ 09:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Dan Andelman "vandalism

That was not vandalism. I was just listening to the Phantom Gourmet (which Dan Andelman hosts) and he said some people know him as the Larry Flint of Food Porn. Please assume good faith rather than accuse me of vandalism. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you give a reference for this? Thanks! --Gilderien (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: 217.131.129.81

Hello, Gilderien. You have new messages at OwenX's talk page.
Message added 02:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

My View

i see that u have reverted one of my edits. i would like to support my edit. i mean no offence, but if you would just see me edit, i believe you would agree with my point of view. the plot of the article is just too big and you can be sure that no one will ever read something so big and elaborate. infact, it just reflects what the synopsis already states, as i have explained in my edit summary. so i believe it would be constructive to delete the section of 'plot'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.60.10.34 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you summarize the plot by section, so it wouldn't have to be deleted? --Gilderien (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Milan metro stations

It's not a vandalism, I have deleted all the railway stations, that have nothing to do with "metro stations". I have also deleted the "planned stations" that will probably never be built (some of them, according to this text, had to be opened in 2010!)--93.50.110.213 (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Why not create an article of Railway Stations as well? --Gilderien (talk) 10:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
It already exists (Railway stations in Milan)!--93.50.110.213 (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Are the stations on the list you removed on that list? --Gilderien (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes. But the biggest problem is that the en.wiki joins in the same text (Milan Transportation System) the Milan metro and the Milan suburban railway service. That brings to confusion. The two systems should be divided, as on it.wiki ([1] and [2]) and on de.wiki ([3] and [4]).--93.50.110.213 (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Could you add a note to/change the article to remove this ambiguity?--Gilderien (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I can't. The article Milan Transportation System is composed by two subparagraphs, I think it should be very easy to trasform them into two separated articles.--93.50.110.213 (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you'd have to ask an administrator to complete that to preserve page history..... see Wikipedia:List_of_administrators.--Gilderien (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Quantum field theory

Can you be more specific as to why you reverted my changes to the introduction to quantum field theory? "Undid revision 434647073 by Evanescent7" is not very informative. --Evanescent7 (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted revision 434647073 because I believed that content of which the scientific accuracy is, as far as my admittedly limited knowledge of the subject goes, is correct, should not be removed. However, I agree with you on your point that the introduction was far too long and likely to put off potential readers, and would be fully supportive of a transfer of this information to another part of the article. --Gilderien (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

ClueBot Barnstar

Thank you for the barnstar for ClueBot NG, it has been moved to User:ClueBot_Commons/Awards with all the others. Thanks again - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 21:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

You seem to be making a lot of these edits with cryptic edits summary, such as "Common edit summaries - click to use)". Please use better edit summaries in the future.

Also, there's zero reason to convert a tilde (~) to c. for a measurement. "c." is for years and dates. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction on tildes. After making some test edits, I have discovered that the common edit summaries javascript (?)option for the editing window uses "Common edit summaries - click to use" when you select any minor edit summary (e.g., for this edit I selected spelling/grammar correction to demonstrate).Thanks,--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 20:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Autoblock

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Gilderien (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
31.25.3.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Hackerrye". The reason given for Hackerrye's block is: "Blocked for one day, due to recent abuse of editing privileges. To appeal or request he

Accept reason: Granting IPBE Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Because this is a multi user server, with hundreds of computers. Thanks--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 13:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh my! It took another barnstar to remind me that I hadn't thanked you for the one you gave me yet! I'm terribly sorry for the oversight (ahem).

I do appreciate it when people say thank you for something like that, so it's especially important to acknowledge it. Once again, thanks. Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Inheriwiki

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.

A tag has been placed on Inheriwiki requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sparthorse (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this page to User:Gilderien/Inheriwiki so you can develop the content. --Versageek 21:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 07:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - November 2011

Delivered November 2011 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 21:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Definition of organic compound

I undid your edit, in which you added the requirement that a molecule contain two or more carbon atoms...that would exclude methane, methanol, formic acid, etc. DMacks (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that my edit was not sourced, but I have always believed (and been taught) that such compounds were inorganic. Why are they not inorganic, and does this mean that all carbon-containing compounds (e.g. CaCO3, CO, CO2, etc.) are organic?--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 20:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The article includes several sourced definitions from high-quality sources, so we're definitely bound to follow them in the article. The current description is the result of some talk-page consensus-building, so if there are additional/alternate definitions with good sourcing, would be great to discuss it there and help reinforce in the article just how hard (some would say "pointless") to try to nail it down. I've never seen ">1 C" as a requirement but would sure love to see a textbook that mentions it.
The dichotomy is certainly a bit unclear for things like ionic carbon oxides (carbonates are often considered inorganic ions). But things like CO and CO2 meet at least one of the standard definitions ("covalent C structures") and even methane meets another one as well ("has a covalent C–H bond") that is commonly used in textbooks. Your definition makes formic acid inorganic but formic anhydride organic, even though the former has kinds of bonds that the latter does not whereas the latter looks more like simple carbon-oxide structures. Things like methanol were surely on the "organic" side of things even back before Friedrich Wöhler disproved the idea of vitalism. DMacks (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

Past tense

I have reverted your edit here. "Read" is the correct past tense for a deleted article. Cheers (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - December 2011

Delivered December 2011 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 20:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gilderien/Archive_1&oldid=1145814568"