User talk:Gorthian/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Tilgate

You're right, it's a spelling error in the index. The actually rock unit the fossils implicitly attributed to the "Tilgate Formation" listing in the index is the Hastings Beds, which crop out in Tilgate Forest. Thank you for catching the error. That article can be safely deleted. Abyssal (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, wow, that's the opposite of what I thought would happen! I thought the spellcheck was replacing "Tilgate Formation" with "Tilgate Forest" everywhere but the index. Well, it explains why I could not find any other references to the "Tilgate Formation" online. The Hastings Beds makes much more sense. Thank you, Abyssal! - Gorthian (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prostigma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Respiration (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) 08:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed - Gorthian (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Agate, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Transverse, Apex and Vesicles (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) 08:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed - Gorthian (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of Indonesia-related topics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Utara, Serdang and Banggai

Index of Indonesia-related articles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Utara and Serdang

Tropical cyclone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Radiate

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate formation articles

I've made the duplicate formation articles into redirects. Abyssal (talk) 12:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, @Abyssal: I'm not sure how you keep them all straight, all over the world! - Gorthian (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If I kept them straight, I wouldn't be making duplicate articles! :P Abyssal (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

"Mudslide" not right

Per you message request, I posted on the talk page of the "mudslides" article. What will it take for changes to be accepted? I noticed that there are other comments on the talk page that raise similar concerns to those that I have presented, but the article has not been updated to address those concerns. FWIW, I am a professional licensed geologist in the State of Washington and on the Washington DNR Forest Practices Division's Qualified Experts list of landslide and slope stability experts. I am willing to help clean up the "mudslides" page, if somebody will let me. It is currently highly inaccurate and misleading. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.204.209.2 (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

In order to keep this discussion focused in one place, I will respond at the mudslide talk page.- Gorthian (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Snow Business

In reference to the recent problem with the Snow Business (company) page. I would like to know what exactly it was that you found To be inappropriate with it so that it is possible to Edit it Again so that It is more descriptive but also expectable. I however found your Comment About The "filmography" some what confusing as almost all pages for special effects companies have a "filmography" section or a "credits" section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruf3n (talk • contribs) 11:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ruf3n: I am copying this question to Talk:Snow Business (company) and will respond there. - Gorthian (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Osialfecanakmg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elements (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) 08:51, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed — Gorthian (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

BracketBot loves me

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Stone of Scone may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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: [[Category:Scottish royalty]]] It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)  Fixed Gorthian (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Riprap may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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: [[Category:Geotechnical engineering]]] It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)  Fixed - Gorthian (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Afro-Latin American may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)  Fixed - Gorthian (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Benthic lander may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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: ] It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)  Fixed - Gorthian (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Diaspore may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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: | dispersion = r < v, weak minerals with a perfect cleavage and pearly luster—like [[mica]], [[talc]], [[brucite]], and [[gypsum]— by its greater hardness of 6.5 - 7. The specific gravity is 3.4. When heated before the It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)  Fixed — Gorthian (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Topographic map (neuroanatomy), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Geniculate nucleus and Colliculus (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) 08:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Geology Barnstar
		For all your work assessing articles and adding articles to the project! RockMagnetist (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, wow! Thank you! — Gorthian (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Charles Mound

It looks like there is a discrepancy in the sources for the height of Charles Mound. The link below is the NGS data sheet for the Charles Mound location. http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=NJ0855

Thanks! Skyrunner75 (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Reversion on Armero tragedy

Hi Gorthian! I'm not really sure why you reverted my citation when a simple message on my talk page would have been sufficient. In the future, could you just let me know so I can take care of my own mistake? Thanks, ceranthor 14:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to wheel war, so I'm going to ask why you're confused about the style of citation. I used the same citation style for a few other references to Mileti, et. al. within the article. It passed FAC, so I don't see anything inaccurate or wrong about it. There's only one source listing Mileti as an author, so why is it hard to follow? Let me know when you see this message; I'll watchlist your talk page. ceranthor 14:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: I apologize. I should have checked the rest of the citations before I reverted. I'm more familiar with using {{tl:sfn}}, where the ref links to the full citation. The method you use is like this first example. I reverted my edit.

However, the citation style is inconsistent within the article. Some of the full references are listed in the "Notes" section, and some are listed in the "Sources" section. I suspect that if this article were nominated for featured status today, this inconsistency would disqualify it. — Gorthian (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, and I'll make sure I resolve that concern. Thanks, ceranthor 11:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Morphology of Diptera

added links pointing to Antenna, Tarsus, Ala, Tip, Arista and Labellum

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed — Gorthian (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Pedra da Gavea

I was wondering if you could do me a quick favor. I've been working on Pedra da Gávea on and off for about a year now, and I've been focusing on the pseudo-archaeology aspect of the article mostly. However, I've started to expand on the geology part and to be honest, I don't know as much about geology as I do anthropology (I already got into some hot water awhile back for making a dumb mistake regrading Neoproterozoic and Meso-Neoproterozoic rocks). I was wondering if you could do a super-quick unofficial look-over/peer review to make sure I'm not writing anything egregious. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

wanderers rugby newcastle australia

Looking for a contact email for a club in Trinidad to host a club side in march 2016 from newcastle australia. Glenn Turner Wanderers rugby club Newcastle Nsw Australia glenn@cdrc.com.au — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.212.120.98 (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Get well soon

Hope you get well again soon! --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Tobias. It's actually some major elective surgery; it'll be quite a long recovery time. I appreciate the good wishes. — Gorthian (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in

Hello Gorthian,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

• Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
• Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com

Hi Gorthian,

Your application for a Newspapers.com account through the Wikipedia Library was approved last August, but we have no record of your having completed the process to claim your account. If you still want access, please let me know. If I don't hear from you, I'll assume you're not interested and the account will be given to another applicant. HazelAB (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@HazelAB:,

I don't think I ever got the notice that my application was approved. As it is, other priorities have intruded on my life, and I doubt I'll be back to editing on a regular basis for a while yet. Go ahead and give another person the account. I'm sorry I wasn't able to make use of it! Thank you. — Gorthian (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

pending changes reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Katie^talk 17:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! — Gorthian (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the reference at Deepak Chopra before you approved that edit? Be more careful with your new power. -Roxy the dog™ woof 10:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The policy at WP:RVW states, "Reviewers do not take responsibility for the correctness of edits they accept. A reviewer only ensures that the changes introduced to the article are broadly acceptable for viewing by a casual reader." Sometimes I will dive deep into an edit, other times not. The re-wording was not vandalism, so I accepted it. — Gorthian (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I had no idea. Easiest review in the history of reviews ever. Good grief. -Roxy the dog™ woof 06:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

marthoma

the edit you have reverted is not true to history of marthoma church  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.184.208 (talk) 11:16, 23 November 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) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heishansaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jiayuguan. 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) 10:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of landslides, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Botn. 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) 09:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

List of mythological creatures

I created a page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mythological_or_fantastic_beings_in_contemporary_fiction , but it needs more contributions. If you'd wander by and add any series you can remember enough of, I'd appreciate it. Tamtrible (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tamtrible: I generally focus my Wikipedia attentions elsewhere, though I follow a few articles about fantasy and science fiction, so I probably won't be adding to that article.

But I do have a few words of advice after looking it over, if you don't mind my offering it unasked. ;-)

First, you probably have read it, but just in case, be sure to peruse the guidelines for list articles. There is no statement at List of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction about what criteria are used to compile the list. (Just the phrase "contemporary literature" opens a whole can of worms!) And there are no references at all. That alone could get the article targeted for deletion. Do read the links in the "notability" tag currently at the top of the article.

Second, there are many similar articles already: see Lists of fictional species (be sure to check out the navbox at the bottom of that article), Lists of fictional animals, Lists of legendary creatures, Lists of fictional hybrids, etc. Maybe some of those can help you expand the article. They might also give you some new formatting ideas. (Tables are useful, but very cumbersome to edit and navigate.)

And third, don't worry too much about making mistakes as you go—they're the only way to learn. Enjoy yourself! — Gorthian (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Zika fever

Dear mr gorthian. With regards to zika fever. I have to inform you that. Homeopathy has treatment for it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drzearsait (talk • contribs) 10:24, January 2, 2016 (UTC)

Pavla Vošahlíková ‎

Hello! Vosahlikova is notably enough with no doubt to have an article on the English Wikipedia. She is a member of editor board of PSB, one of the best biographical dictionaries in the world. She had also an article in Lexikon současných českých historiků, which collected information about the most important Czech historians. I will add some more information. Regards Kmicic (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Kmicic: It's just that the article itself must show her notability; more info (and references!) would be great! Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

There are references from the website of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic and from the website of PSB. Kmicic (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome message...

Thank you for the welcome message, but, I've been here and done that before. Perhaps it would be best if you read my reply to your welcome at my talk page. 69.47.10.171 (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

About your revert on the Rommel article

Hello, I just realized it was you who reverted my edit on the Rommel page. I had assumed it was Rklawton, especially since he sent me a threatening message. I have one simple question: could somebody please tell me what it is in my edit that two people have objected to? And why do people want incorrect info in the article? (Okay, that was two.) Since Rklawton refuses to tell me what he finds objectionable, and since you seem to agree with him, would you please tell me what is supposed to be wrong with it? You know that one of the requirements of Wikipedia is that anytime someone takes some action he must explain why he did it, something that Rklawton refuses to do. (In my 15 years on Wikipedia, I have never known another editor who was as recalcitrant as he.) So would you please explain why you reverted my edit? Thanks in advance. __209.179.86.123 (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to include something in my earlier post. When you reverted my edit, you specified WP:BRD, which is a good idea, but your vert revert violated it. Could you explain that please? Thanks in advance. __209.179.86.123 (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Erwin Rommel. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.179.22.107 (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Climate Action Plan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Climate Action Plan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate Action Plan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 16:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you contributed to the discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate action, I wanted to ping you and let you know that your input would be valued. I am posting this notice on the talk page for every editor who has contributed to that discussion and the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avoiding dangerous climate change, regardless of their vote or apparent viewpoint. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 16:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Zika virus outbreak (2015–present) page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gorthian. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 04:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 04:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for saying, "Wikipedia has become the default website for knowledge of all sorts". at "Volunteers are bringing reliable information about the Zika virus to the world". I also feel this is so, but I think there is insufficient popular recognition of this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Bluerasberry, I think that the popular perception is slowly changing for the better.— Gorthian (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Gorthian. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Ping. Let me know if you didn't receive it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you, you are doing a good job!

Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hanyangprofessor2: Well, thank you! Nice to get this out of the blue. :-) — Gorthian (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Roman à clef

Hi Gorthian- Regarding your revert of my change: I consider a term to be adopted into the English language once it appears in a major dictionary such as the AHD. See its entry here. After you alerted me to Wikipedia's presentation of the term at roman à clef, I was tempted to remove the italics there--and to upgrade the not-very-encyclopedic wording of its first sentence--but I'm not sure it's worth any grief that might cause. I find that unnecessary of italics comes across as an affectation. Eric ^talk 03:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eric: I went off to find the guidance for this issue in the MOS. It's murky, at best, and seems outdated. Supposedly, any word found in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary should not be italicized. Guess what's in that dictionary? :-) The policy needs revising, but right now, I'd rather give my time and energies to other projects here. Meanwhile, I aim for some internal consistency. — Gorthian (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Understood, and, yes, I find many of our policy/guidance pages wanting. I'd have a stronger opinion if the roman à clef article were likely to have a lot of traffic. Eric ^talk 20:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Idea

So, I had an idea to make Wikipedia better. I add the

1This user is a WikiInfant.

template to new user pages to try to get the community to help them out a bit more. Is that okay? PrismTheDragon (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@PrismTheDragon: That might be a good idea, but I'm not sure why you're asking me. A good place to make a proposal is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Or you could ask at the Teahouse; there's a link to it on your talk page. — Gorthian (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for your help with the refspam. Doug Weller talk 10:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! — Gorthian (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

MAZM refspam editor

Thank you for picking up that thread and untangling it, I found it and it was like a cold shock when I realised the implications and had no idea what to do next. I'm semi-retired, I don't have the ability to do the kind of research you had to do to find and collate that situation. Ogress 23:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I happen to have some free time, and I love solving puzzles. I am really grateful to you and others who originally picked up on this guy. What a tangled web! I'm still unearthing IPs and articles. — Gorthian (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Gorthian, I hope you don't mind that I followed your link to your sandbox. I have reviewed and cleared some more of the references. I did leave one or two in place, as they actually do support the sentences. I will do some more, probably about 8 or so hours from now. Thank so much for researching this and bringing it to the attention of the community. Best, --Tribe of Tiger (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I was tickled pink to see that the table was useful. :-)

About clearing out all the refs he's added: I feel that even if the citation supports a statement (and I have no way to know—I don't have access), the ref should still be removed on the grounds that we want to discourage self-citation. Sometimes he even adds a marginally pertinent sentence so that he can support it with a citation to his own article. If other editors want to add his work as sources, that's up to them. I've been checking nearly every article to see who added the reference, and it's always been him, except one article. In Tunisian Arabic, two other editors added separate citations to his work, here and here. I was struck by how different their styles were from what we see from him. Good fodder for an edit filter, methinks.

Anyway, thanks for stopping by. I'll be back at it myself in fits and starts tomorrow. Cheers! — Gorthian (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ogress: You really did a lot of cleanup early on! I cheer every time I see you reverted him. When you do, 1) be sure he was the one that added the ref in the first place, and 2) remove the entire citation, not just his name. He adds the whole ref when he adds it, with occasionally a bit of supporting text. I take the text part out, too, when it hasn't been modified by other editors, but otherwise I leave it alone.— Gorthian (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: You're right, lots of the pages edited on May 10, 2016 by 182.186.37.215 have been cleared up by other editors. But there's a swath—working upwards in the contributions page from Women's education in Pakistan all the way up the list to Agriculture in Pakistan—that haven't been fully checked yet. On each page, make sure that our guy was the one who added the ref in the first place. I saw you already ran across one of the rare cases where someone other than him actually cited his work—! ;-) — Gorthian (talk) 02:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: It's DONE! Thank you so MUCH to you and all who pitched in. Tomorrow I will try to let everyone know, and then I'll be making an edit filter request to see if we can stop any more of this behavior. Right now, I'm off to sleep. — Gorthian (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Gorthian: Hooray!! Sorry I am late with my congratulations for a job well done!! Thanks for getting this organized, with a marvelous worksheet/table in addition to your sleuthing. BTW, the reason I left the note about May 10, 2016, was because I had put the "doing" template on it...and then I occurred to me that it might be better to do the older dates first. Totally agreed with you that everything had to be checked. Another thing I discovered was that he is clueless about Harvard-style, shortened (foot)notes like these. In a couple of articles, he changed the "References" heading to "Further reading", or just "Readings"[sic] in one case. What a disaster! And he was a student at the University of Durham in England..It seems as though he should have recognized what was going on. I do hope someone can design an edit filter as a defense for the future.I actually enjoyed doing this, and learned a few tricks, and saw some interesting articles. I'm going to go back through them, because some of the citations need maintenance, and I enjoy doing this type of repair work.Okay, that's all for now. I have some "how-to" questions, that I hope you will be willing to answer. Thanks again for letting me "play in your sandbox"! --Tribe of Tiger (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: Ask whatever questions you like! And I feel the same way: I learned stuff doing this I didn't know about, and it was enjoyable! Sometimes I think this encyclopedia is infinite—so many articles on so many subjects. — Gorthian (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hydraulic fracturing

I have undone your good rath revert, please see the talk page Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 13:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

hi

left a note at Talk:List of epidemics--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Edits on Megatsunami on 23 Friday 2016

Why do you undo my edit it's way for that very reason and the fact that it's was Supposed to be constructive in a way...SO WHY?! — 2601:183:4000:D5BD:ACDD:FFC9:ECF:2DDC (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I know you meant them to be constructive, but your edits really didn't help the article. Please read WP:Overlinking and Help:Referencing for beginners to see why. There's a LOT here to learn—you might want to slow down a bit. :-) — Gorthian (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary

Hello, Gorthian -- There are a few things that puzzle me about this article, and I wonder if you could help me understand them:

1) The lead starts out with this:

• The Cretaceous–Paleogene (K–Pg) boundary, formerly known as the Cretaceous–Tertiary (K–T) boundary,[a] is a geological signature, usually a thin band of rock. K, the first letter of the German word Kreide (chalk), is the traditional abbreviation for the Cretaceous Period and Pg is the abbreviation for the Paleogene Period.

I assume that the "thin band of rock" is light-colored because "K" is "the first letter of the German word Kreide (chalk)", and chalk is usually light-colored. Is that right?

2) If the band is "usually a thin band of rock", what exactly is the boundary in the first image? Is it the light-colored band of rock or is it the border between the light-colored band and the dark-colored band just above it? If it is the former, that is a fairly wide band, so is that a good illustration of a "thin band of rock"?

3) In the first two pictures, there is a band of dark-colored rock above a fairly large light-colored band of light-colored rock. In the fourth image, of Trinidad Lake State Park, it's a little more irregular, but it looks like the dark-colored rock is above light-colored rock. If that is true, then why does the caption of that image say the boundary "shows an abrupt change from dark- to light-colored rock". Is it referring to the medium brown-colored rock near the bottom of the cliff being below the buff-colored rock?  – Corinne (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Corinne, I'll do my best to explain.

1. The lead sentence is rather awkwardly written; the reference to "chalk" has nothing to do with the boundary itself, but is explaining the name of the Cretaceous and why it's abbreviated with a K. Chalk is light-colored, but that doesn't matter in this article. Geological ages are usually named for distinctive rocks that originally formed during that time period, and the Cretaceous was named for extensive chalk beds in Europe.
2. The K–Pg boundary in the first photo is exactly where the light-colored (older) rocks touch the darker (younger) rocks. The thickness of the boundary is not visible at this scale; you would have to get very close to the rocks to see it. The second picture gives you a good look at it (here it is at maximum size). The caption says that the boundary layer here is the gray rock. It's not a simple, single layer (some deformation has occurred, maybe at the time of deposition), but you can see how thin it is. The gray rock on top is not part of the boundary layer.
3. Though rocks in different locations can be the same age, they can be widely different in appearance and manner of formation. The K–Pg boundary is worldwide, but its appearance is not the same from location to location. The key defining features of the boundary are its age and its high iridium content, neither of which is visible. The rock around it can be pretty much anything—whatever was existing before the dust from the pulverized asteroid sifted down onto it, and then whatever was deposited later on top of that.

I hope this helps you at least some. I sure would like to put my finger on that boundary sometime, just to say I did! — Gorthian (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your detailed explanations. I understand the part about K and the name of the Cretaceous, and most of the rest of what you wrote. I wonder if the caption of the image with the man pointing to the boundary could be made just a little clearer. You said the boundary was gray, and the caption says "(gray)", but the man's finger is pointing to the border between a lighter buff color and a darker buff color. Is the darker buff color part of the boundary layer, along with the thin gray band, or is the boundary layer only the thin gray band? If it is just the thin gray band, perhaps that phrase could be added to the caption. Also, you didn't answer my question about the Trinidad Lake State Park. Maybe we can make the caption clearer there, too (but you'd have to help me since I don't understand where the boundary is in that photo).  – Corinne (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Corinne, I believe the situation in the state park photo is the same as in the first photo: the boundary layer is too thin to be visible at that scale. As for the details in the closeup image, I have no more information than you do; you might find out more if you ask the person who took the photo. — Gorthian (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

West Virginia

Hello, Gorthian -- Out of curiosity I looked at an edit to West Virginia in which an editor linked "B.P." to the article Before Present. I suppose it was all right, but the periods after the "B" and the "P" didn't look right to me, so I looked at Paleontology to find an example of "BP", and I only saw "before present", but it was linked to Before Present, and in that article "BP" has no periods, so I removed the periods. I only realized it was in a quote after I saved my edit. Then I spent some time trying to find the original article to see if it was written with periods, but I couldn't find it there or in the article Prehistory of West Virginia. I know one shouldn't change things in quotes (but I have also been told that minor changes to correct spelling, etc., are permitted). Shall I undo my edit, assuming that it was "B.P." in the source, or leave it "BP", which is Wikipedia's style? Also, why can't I find the source (Mills, OSU 2003)?  – Corinne (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the periods matter very much in a quote; no one's going to sue anyone if they are or aren't there. Sticking to WP style is fine. As for the source: you can't find it because it's not cited correctly; you might even say it's not cited at all! Who is Mills? Which OSU is meant? Which of Mills's 2003 publications is meant? And so on. That's an example of a non-verifiable reference; I would tag it with {{full citation needed}}. — Gorthian (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Gorthian -- I'm glad it wasn't there. I thought it was there and I couldn't find it. I'll place the tag.  – Corinne (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited San Geronimo Valley, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Forest Knolls, California and Forest Knolls. 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) 10:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed— Gorthian (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 20 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 2015–16 Zika virus epidemic page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed— Gorthian (talk) 05:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Gorthian

Thank you for the welcome. I'm not very good at the deeper coding/editing but I'm finding my way slowly, mostly by example.

See you out there!

Chapeaubien (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

reply

thank you for your suggestions. I tried my best to cite those statements.i want to hear further suggestions from you .actually i added further information that i know based on the topics--Belbasesuraj (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC). i am beginner in editing articles in wikipedia,i hope with your support and suggestions i could improve pages .Thank you again. Belbasesuraj (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Belbasesuraj, welcome to Wikipedia! It can take quite a while to learn your way around; this place is much deeper than it looks. :-) First of all, you need to know that it is not your knowledge of the topics that matters, although that can be helpful in finding information. We base each fact and assertion on what reliable sources say. And when you find a reliable source that states something that's important to an article, you need to cite that reference in the article.

The best thing you can do at first is read, read, read! Open every link in the welcome message on your talk page, read them, follow other links, read those, etc. The best place to get guidance and help is at the Teahouse. Or you could learn as I did: look at what other editors have done, click on the "edit" button in an article and examine how the code works, lurk at the Teahouse and other talk pages, just absorb things for a while. Start with very small changes (typos, grammar, etc.), and don't be too eager to write whole articles yet. You'll get there's eventually! And have fun. :-) — Gorthian (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Left Hand of Darkness at FAC

Greetings, Gorthian. I've nominated The Left Hand of Darkness at FAC, and I know you've done some work on it over the years. If you could look in on the review and leave some feedback, it would be much appreciated: the review is a little low on participation right now. The review is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Left Hand of Darkness/archive1. If I've asked this of you before, my apologies :) Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Radu Rosetti

I wish the Rosetti clan had been more creative in naming their progeny, but oh well. For Bogdan-Pitești, it's Radu D., because we're talking about memoirs written in the 1930s and '40s, while plain Radu died in 1926. For Carp, it's plain Radu - he was pro-German during World War I (a tidbit hopefully to be included soon), while Radu D. was pro-French. I hope order has largely been restored regarding this rather confusing situation. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Biruitorul: That's not the last of them! There's yet another Radu Rosetti who was the grandfather of Aspasia Manos. The French Wikipedia helped out there: "Radu Rosetti (1762-1838), Hetman of Moldova". Probably not going to get an article anytime soon. Thank you for creating the article! It was sorely needed. — Gorthian (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure. The good news about that fellow is that his first name tends to be given as Răducanu, his last name as Ruset or Roset, so there's less chance of further confusion. His grandson actually wrote about him in 1906 - I may turn that into an article at some point, although the writing is a little dry. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Lloyd Stephens, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page European. 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) 09:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laki dialect, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Khorasan and Khurasani. 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) 10:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

zika virus danger warning from seller

Regarding Zika Virus posting today 8-29-2016: You mention addition I made is spam. Why? Did you bother to read the link? ATCC.org, the organization itself, which actually sells the Zika virus CLEARLY warns, "Effect on Host Paralysis and death" AND "Accidental infection has occurred in laboratory personnel" https://atcc.org/Products/All/VR-84.aspx#characteristics

Denying this critical info to others, that Zika Virus results in "Paralysis and death", information which can save their lives, is criminal. I am going to give you the opportunity to put back the warning, else you will be held responsible. Documentation of your efforts begins now. And, as your incredibly pompous messages states, "This is your only warning" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:F090:B8F0:8C8E:D7D2:D2FB:67A8 (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I beg your pardon if my message sounded pompous. Your edit looked like spam because it was a link to a product page, and Wikipedia must deal with tons of spam that is added every day, most by people that do not have accounts.

The great majority of people that get Zika do not get paralyzed or die; most don't even know they have it. A very few do develop paralysis, but it is rare.

Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines? What you added was not a reliable medical source. The warning you quote above is most likely a C.Y.A. effort on the part of the company, and not suitable as information for the general public. If a national health agency were to issue this warning, then it would be worth paying attention to. — Gorthian (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Good teamwork!

At some time or another in the last three years, the editors listed here reverted or deleted refspam that had been added into articles all over the encyclopedia by one M. Mughal. Some of us just finished a concerted effort to clean it all out; it was all of your work that got us there. Thank you!

• 112.118.160.98
• Amatulic
• Blue Mist 1
• DMacks
• Doug Weller
• DVdm
• Jc3s5h
• Jotamar
• LionMans Account
• Mild Bill Hiccup
• Ogress
• postdlf
• RegentsPark
• Sitush
• Smartse
• SpacemanSpiff
• SQGibbon
• Stamptrader
• Tribe of Tiger
• TripWire
• Ugog Nizdast
• Velella

--Gorthian (talk • contribs) 08:13, 2016 May 25 (UTC)

Zika Cases in Puerto Rico

Moved to Talk:2015–16 Zika virus epidemic § Puerto Rico numbers

--‎ Gorthian (talk • contribs) 00:33, 2016 August 11 (UTC)