User talk:Gabriel Kielland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Gabriel Kielland, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Scoo 05:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


arbejder du der? --Ysangkok 20:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hej, Ysangkok! Jeg er ansatt ved Meteorologisk instittutt i Norge.

Best Available Technology[edit]

Gabriel Kielland, thank you for working on the article Best Available Technology. I have made some changes to try to guide you in formatting your information for Wikipedia, and I hope these changes are helpful to you. If you read Wikipedia's manual of style, Wikipedia:Footnotes, and WIkipedia:Citing sources, my changes will make more sense to you. You are doing wonderful work here! Thank you for your contributions. Just as a reminder, self-published sources are not permitted in Wikipedia except in certain circumstances. Please make sure your sources are published. The Bob Smith source is not published and should be removed, so if you know of a published source for this information it would be very helpful! Welcome to Wikipedia! --Busy Stubber 02:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


Barnstar of Reversion2.png The Barnstar of Reversion
For reverting vandalism and unhelpful edits on wikipedia pages I User Swirlex award you this Barnstar.

World government[edit]


Why did you ask for references?

The only information that i am uncomfortable with is the Soviet Union. I agree that a search for references would be great to improve that part.

That muslims and christians try to convert all humans seems to me like an established fact. It could be argued wether a relgion can be seen as a sort of world government.

In case of the Nazis, the plan was to turn Berlin into a world capital and the Germans were trying to conquer all during World War II. What is the need of a reference in that case? It seems obvious to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daanschr (talkcontribs) 09:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign previously.Daanschr (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
No harm intented. World government is a tricky subject. Any number of "enemies" have been accused of aspiring for world domination. Each of these four examples should only be presented when there is a reliable source that speaks on behalf of the interested party, and not only as some "truth" construed by others. A very good fifth example of a construed accusation is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. You might agree that it hardly deserves mentioning in the article. In the christian context the Great Commission may come closest to world government. Is there a representative of that link anywhere? It would be interesting to know. In the muslim context shahadah may be the closest but I hardly beleive world government has been within the teaching of any muslim congregation. Can you prove me wrong? It would likewise be historically interesting to see your source on the nazi allegation. Nazi is nowadays the most commonly used term of derision. Wikipedia should stay well clear of that. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess that our dissagreement is based on a different philosophy. I try to refer to the practise of world government, instead of only the intention. You seem to want sources on the will to specificly wanting a world government. I don't mind if the article puts the intention first, so we could revert my edits. I have nothing to do with any of the ideologies portrayed, since i regard myself as a social-democrat, which is an ideology which has no outspoken desire to start a world government. Social democrats try to build up a harmonious society where people help eachother in a peacefull way and where people are allowed to think and say whatever they like as long as they respect the moderate laws. It could be applied worldwide, but it could be applied regionally as well.Daanschr (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


I'm confused as to why you marked this edit as vandalism. From the reference: "On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century. An additional 3.9 to 7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues." Therefore, 4-8 is accurate whereas 4-5 is not. I don't see why you would've marked this that way. Oren0 (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. My bad. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Gabriel, I made the edit under sustainability I was adding a company/ organization. I'm a wiki member I didn't make the edit under my log in however it wasn't vandalism. I'm not sure you understand vandalism. Please don't take offense to what I'm saying. I will make the changes under my wiki account but it wasn't vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You entered a link to HUGS Healing US Sustainably Globally which is still empty. Also there is zero Google hits on "Healing US Sustainably Globally". If it is not vandalism, what is it? Gabriel Kielland (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Mr Kielland, Initially I was surprised when I noticed that you reverted changes made by me on the following page [1] but now after visiting your talk page I see that you do this quite carelessly. Please bother to read the reference quoted before making any change in future. I have undo the change made by you. In future if you intend making any changes do quote reference first. Your unkind remarks are not appreciated. Act responsibly.Adeelyusuf (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind advice. Your edit seems to based on a misunderstanding. Please further the discussion under the proper talkpage. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 07:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Michel de Salzmann[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Michel de Salzmann 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 a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi. Would you be interested in participating in talk/Sustainability again? Major and contentious rewrite underway. Best -- V.B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V.B. (talkcontribs) 17:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Assurance[edit]

Hi Gabriel. Vandalism??? What about precision and truth? I believe the definition of quality assurance is misunderstood by many (including yourself) and I am not pursuing correcting your edits any longer. As long as people ignore that QA is different form QC, this page will be pointless. The way the texts are removed are distasteful and child play. May I doubt the integrity of Wikipedia forever...

--Northenpal (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Acid rain[edit]

Would you please explain what you mean by your comment "indirectly related to the topic?" Seems directly related to me, unless you mean to exclude everything that is not chemistry from that article. I did not create the subsection for Emissions Trading in the article on Acid Rain, but merely added material which I believe is relevant and directly related to the topic. The alternative you propose seems rather obscure. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The definition of acid rain is now one sentence straight: "Acid rain is rain or any other form of precipitation that is unusually acidic." No trading is relevant to this definition. The article goes on to explain that 1) acid rain is a problem, 2) there are prevention methods 3) one of the prevention methods is emissions trading. Trading is then four logical steps removed from the topic. There is however a separate article emissions trading which would benefit from adding your text. An even better place might be the article Acid Rain Program which also lacks the details. The article acid rain should be brief on each prevention method, with the appropriate links whenever the content is available. Did this clarify? Gabriel Kielland (talk) 10:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I moved the material to the article Acid Rain Program. Will you please insert in the Emissions Trading section of the Acid Rain article a note similar to the one you proposed but that directs attention to the Acid Rain Program? Haven't figured out how to do that yet.... Mervyn Emrys (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. Feel free to amend. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Spirituality critic link[edit]

re: your revert on Spirituality

Is there any reason why you think giving a link to, a portal for exposing the criticism of spirituality, in Spirituality is considered vandalism? While Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion, it must be understood that Wikipedia does not prohibit references to criticisms. In fact, certain articles have their own section called Criticism. There is no reason why you would revert the addiction of link to which was added in the same spirit (of providing information) of adding links like " People sharing their various spiritual experiences". Linking to a site where people share their various spiritual experiences is not considered promotional content, but a criticism site is, eh? - Nearfar (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you to continue the discussion on Talk:Spirituality - Nearfar (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The reverted link referred to a wiki with 180 entries. WP:UNDUE. No reason to spam the talkpage as well. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
"No to reason to spam the talkpage as well". Oh? What then is the purpose of a talk page? I located the following:
The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.
May I ask - in what way this discussion, which lead to hgilbert removing other links that violate WP:UNDUE, is considered "spam"? - Nearfar (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
If you are referring to your own talk page, I apologize. Feel free to delete this section! - 00:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nearfar (talkcontribs)

Extreme weather article[edit]

Why did you put back the unsourced list? My edit summary said it was apparently OR, you didn't comment on that at all, just restored it with no comment. dougweller (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the list provides interesting food for thought on the topic. Without having read David Keys' book, the list seems to be keywords from its content. You provided a review from which were quoted everything negative. The list makes for a balance. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I provided the review that I knew about. You admit you don't know where the list comes from, so unless it is sourced it shouldn't be there. Nothing to do with balance, balance would be a favorable review. dougweller (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
For what it is worth, the review in question also says "Keys offers a lot of supporting evidence for his broader interpretation" and "the global scope and the emphasis on the 6th century AD as a time of wide-ranging change are commendable, and the book contains some fascinating and obscure information". That is the source. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Added the last bit. But the review does not say "Keys offers a lot of supporting evidence for his broader interpretation". It says "

at first sight Keys offers a lot of supporting evidence for his broader interpretation. However, much of the apparent evidence presented in the book is highly debatable, based on poor sources or simply incorrect." which is very different. It means although it appears that he offers..., in fact 'much of the apparent evidence..."

dougweller (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Air Quality article[edit]

It will entail a lot of work but I think it's a very necessary article. I am currently trying to revise Volatile Organic Compound and related pages--they are mostly of sub-standard quality. I will eventually get to Air Quality because it's very related to VOCs. Are you active in this field? Freefighter (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I was at one time the project manager on air quality with the European Environment Agency. The lack of interest in environmental quality in current political discussions I find intriguing. During the 70's it was the basis for formulating objective policy targets. Somewhat a lost civilization. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


Hello Gabriel Kielland, I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Acalamari 23:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies[edit]

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Metropolitan regions of Norway[edit]

Why did you revert my changes to this article? The official population of Trondheim municipality clearly isn't 151,408.[2] -- Nidator T / C 15:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The introduction to the table reads "number of municipalities and inhabitants as of 1 January 2002". Updating only one of the numbers is inappropriate. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Good point! I will do a more thorough edit. -- Nidator T / C 08:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


I'm very sorry, but I'm from Poland, and I know in Poland is PRUSZKÓW, no PRÓSZKÓW. I live near this town! You make a big mistake! It's not a vandalise, I'm care about right use of my, MY NATIONAL LEANGUE. You are from Norway, I'm from Poland, so who got's a right? Let's check it out here-->

The reference reads: "Najwyższa temperatura powietrza 40,2 Prószków k. Opola 29.07.1921". This is obviously a different place from your hometown. Please provide a different reference if this one is mistaken. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion2.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your many revisions of sneaky vandalism at List of weather records. It is much appreciated! -RunningOnBrains(talk) 01:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, but I quoted from Iranian website, anyway Thank you for the correction. have a nice day Ahmad2099 (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Shamanism article[edit]

I was not attempting to vandalise Wikipedia. I merely read information on shamanism and healers in Cyprus, both historically and their modern-day impact, and wanted to add it to the article in order for it show a more broad range of content. Sorry that I may have inconvenienced you. -- (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Shamanism is a tricky subject. Your contribution did not fit well with the rest of the article, so some rewording should be considered. Better take the discussion in the proper talk page. Cheers! Gabriel Kielland (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

World government[edit]

Minor Barnstar.png The Minor Barnstar
It is my pleasure and privilege to award you this Barnstar for your minor edit of "World government" page wherein you recognized what appeared to be WP:Vandalism. Keep up the good WP work! Ludvikus (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate your looking out against Vandalism - I cannot imagine what else that last editor you reverted could have been doing. Keep up your good work. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


It's Customary at Wikipedia to Copy one's Barnstars unto one's User page. Why don't you do that? --Ludvikus (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Never thought of it as I don't read user pages much. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You should. It might give you a better understanding of what an editor may mean! It's so easy for us all to misunderstand one another. So every clue helps. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I just did it for you, in accordance with your implicit desire, & WP:Bold principle. Hope you like it. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


Shamanism was the main belief of ancient Altaic and Finno-Ugric peoples, do you want me to add tons of sources into article? if you want i will do it with sincearly, thus the prectise of Tengriism is totally based on shamanism.-- (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem there. The problematic is your claim the the word shaman is of turkish origin rather than tungusic. You have now provided four references, none of which supports the claim. To the contrary the fourth reference([3]) states that the turkish equivalent term to shaman is baqsï. The reference to tengriism is already in the regional part of the article. Please revert. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Pine Island Glacier[edit]

I have changed the coordinates back to the USGS reference. In fact even more accurately to the USGS reference at 75 deg 10 min S 100 deg W. I appreciate that this is the very end of the grounded glacier (grounding line) not in the middle, but the position you gave was actually slightly off the glacier (streaming ice). Probably best to stick to the USGS reference for the present. I have been there myself and our main camp was more central at around 75 deg 24 min S and 95 52 min W. But it doesn't really matter that much :) Polargeo (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Black Sea deluge theory[edit]

I have commented on your erasure of the links I added to Black Sea deluge theory on the talk page. To my mind, you went way overboard, especially when you labeled my edits as "spam" and cited a template that implies that I was promoting some personal interest. The first of the two papers I referenced is the original paper on the subject. I'm certain that many people researching the subject would be happy to have such a link in the entry. --PloniAlmoni (talk) 09:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping that was just an error. The edit summary mentions vandalism, but you removed reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Almost a year has gone by and you have not explained why you erased the references I added, (mis)-labeling them as vandalism. On my talk page you wrote Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. Exactly which of these do you claim I violated? The first reference I added was a citation of Ryan and Pitman's paper - a citation useful to someone looking for more information or wishing to provide the full reference; the second was a reference to a critical, scientific paper, published by reputable authors. PloniAlmoni (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The two references are still not integrated in the article as such. There is one stand alone list called Works consulted and a second list called Further reading. Please feel free to improve the article per WP:CITEHOW. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wrangel Island[edit]

You removed the Category:Former settlements in Russia tag from this article. It was added on the basis that the island was uninhabited by the 18th century, so the earlier prehistoric settlements had died out. Also, an Inuit settlement established by the Canadians was evicted in 1926 and Soviet prison settlements used during World War II have gone. In other words, settlements have been abandoned. I'm interested why you removed the tag. Folks at 137 (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The island is not a settlement in itself. The settlements you mention could well have articles of their as for example Chertov Ovrag or ru:Ушаковское. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Having a go at transferring ru:Ушаковское. First attempt at this. Folks at 137 (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Your offensive talk page posting[edit]

If you make one more uncivil posting on my talk page I will report you! Falsely accusing an editor of "blanking page contents or templates" is a serious offense. I'll also give you some basic editing advice - look before you leap. In this case it means taking a look at the edit history of the article. If you had done this you would have seen that an editor had removed the words "medieval Armenia" and replaced it with "medieval Azerbaijan", and had done this without any explanation. I was returning the article to its previous state, and that edit was certainly not "blanking page contents or templates". If you are ignorant of the use of simurg iconography and doubted that Armenia should be there, then you should have just placed a fact tag against the word Armenia and I would have provided several references that indicate that simurgh imagery was common in medieval Armenia and also in the Byzantine empire. There is also no such thing as "medieval Azerbaijan". Meowy 17:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing references to the claim. Your adversity towards Azerbaijani culture seems however out of place.Gabriel Kielland (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Your knee-jerk adversity is what seems out of place, assume good faith. Meowy 21:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

5 kingdoms of the ocean'[edit]

Hi Gabriel. Thanks for tagging this page for deletion. I thought I'd mention that in similar cases in future you can tag the talk page with {{G8}} rather than creating an article to go with the talk page. Cheers, and happy editing, Olaf Davis (talk) 12:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion[edit]

Is there a reason you removed the Oil Spill category from Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion? The Spill resulting from the explosion is already one of the largest in history and should be in this category. Aalox (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason for removal is technical. Category:Oil spills in the United States is already there, so the hierachically superior Category:Oil spills is superfluous. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, noted. Thank you for explaining that. :) Aalox (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team wants You![edit]

Hi Gabriel Kielland,

I saw some of your contributions on articles (pollution, oil spills, air quality) that fall within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, your input would be valuable to the project, and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


[4] - SSJ t 11:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of content without proper justification is vandalism. Please explain. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Aircraft registrations[edit]

Re your reversion of my addition of Danzig, see this image, which shows a Dz registration in use. Mjroots (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Danzig register, apparently introduced 1921 and lasted until 1929. Mjroots (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
This is political on a symbolic level. Germany was not part of the 1919 international allocation, nor was Russia. It might be of interesting to describe the circumstances within the article. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by political/symbolic. The Free State of Danzig was separate from the Weimar Republic, and thus was allocated its own registration letters, Dz (uniquely including a lower-case letter). As your ojection was that it was not part of the original 1919 allocation, maybe that section should be re-titled "Pre-1928 registrations", as the UK did not adopt G-Exxx until 1920, originally using K-nnn registrations under the 1919 introduction of civil aircraft registrations. Mjroots (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
That may well be a solution. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


I was looking at your piece on E.E. Fedorov in the new articles queue and couldn't find mention of him in the list of Academy of Science members that you cite as footnote 1. I'm not sure there's an issue, but you might take a look at the piece and provide more precise evidence of his membership in the Academy of Sciences. best regards, Carrite (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is almost verbatim taken from the reference. The page number is now added. This is all I know apart from his work being honorably mentioned with the WMO Guide. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Trysil Skytte og Skiloberforning[edit]

Hi Gabriel, In the history of Modern Skiing on the 5th November 2010 you edited “Trysil Skytte og Skiloberforning” to read “Trysil Shot and Ski Practitioner”. I am being questioned regarding that translation, could you please help me with source reference. Sealark --Sealark (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The current article reference is your own production. There the "Trysil Skytte- og Skiløberforening" is spelled wrongly, see no:Trysilgutten. There is no official translation to English. In the attempt we seem to agree that Trysil is the name of the community and that the Norwegian forening is sufficiently close to an English association. Club would also be fine.
The rest reads grammatically as a description of the club members' activity. I now realize that shooter probably is better than shot. A shooting association would translate "skyteforening" rather than "skytteforening". A "Skiløber" is a person using skis whether cross country, downhill, jumping or otherwise. Ski practitioner might not be the best translation. In French "skieur" would do fine. The combined name does not necessarily imply biathlon activities. Cheers from Oslo. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

thank you for your contributions to Planetary boundaries[edit]

thank you for your contributions to Planetary boundaries (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to Environmental resources management. (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your (now ammended) contributions. (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Be aware that User:Arthur Rubin (Arthur Rubin) hides/deletes other's Talk, such as May 19th on User Talk:Zodon ... on March 30th 2011 it was User talk:Granitethighs and User talk:OhanaUnited These are related to Template:Sustainability and Sustainability (and related topics). There are many other examples of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing such as Large Cities Climate Leadership Group... Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin. (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Gabriel Keilland, thank you. 20:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
You should be aware that all these IPs thanking you are the same person, including at least two who are the same IP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Hi Gabriel Kielland! It's been a while. I'm not sure if you still know me but you have once warned me for vandalizing a page which I did not. Even though that edit really seems like an act of vandalism, I'm impressed with you! This Barnstar is awarded onto you for combating vandalism in this online encyclopedia for years. Thank you very much, Wikipedia needs people like you! Thanks and have a nice day! Enjoy, well-deserved. ;) Mediran (tc) 10:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Revert Coriolis effect[edit]

Would you please revert your recent edit to Coriolis effect and state on that talk page what you'd like to do. There are some other issues there that need dealt with first. That particular link you deleted may still have value once the reference is changed. Watchwolf49z (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The site [5] referenced is derelict. I was unable to locate the specific pdf referenced elsewhere, only an abstract at [6]. If the abstract is interesting to the article it is better included in the text. I think not. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you refusing to discuss this on talk:Coriolis effect? Watchwolf49z (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
There is not much to discuss. Feel free to copy my explanation there. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bruce Cork, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berkeley (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) 11:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Club of Rome may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:
  • Graham M. |last1=Turner |autholink1= |year=2008 |editor=[[Global Environmental Change |publisher=[[Elsevier]] |accessdate=20 October 2013}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of meteorology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Bookman (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) 08:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Gabriel Kielland. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)