User talk:Gorthian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Welcome   Talk   Resources   Potential  

Good teamwork![edit]

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!

--Gorthian (talkcontribs) 08:13, 2016 May 25 (UTC)

Zika Cases in Puerto Rico[edit]

--‎ Gorthian (talkcontribs) 00:33, 2016 August 11 (UTC)

zika virus danger warning from seller[edit]

Regarding Zika Virus posting today 8-29-2016: You mention addition I made is spam. Why? Did you bother to read the link?, 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"

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)

Indefinite articles on dab pages[edit]

Hi, I'm looking at this and I'm wondering why you've removed the indefinite articles from the descriptions. The dab pages I've seen so far all contain them whenever grammatical, and the only systematic exception I know of is about persons. Uanfala (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Uanfala. I think I started out doing that because of the guidance at MOS:DABPEOPLE. Then I saw another disambiguator removing the indefinite articles on other types of entries, so I tried it out and found it worked well most of the time. I use it for efficiency and for making descriptions as short as possible while still imparting the information needed. There's no particular guidance involved. I guess you could say it's an editing "style". — Gorthian (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, I find the lack of determiners a bit disorienting and I'm not sure the extra bit of confusability is worth the little gain in brevity. The exception about people is there probably because a long list of entities of the same type sets enough of the scene to preclude any confusion about referentiality. At any rate, I'm not the one to judge English usage, and by all means would I support wikipedians using their own styles on the pages they create, but I think changing the dominant style of already existing pages is something that could do with some kind of consensus. Uanfala (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hm. If you find it confusing, probably others do, too. I'll stop doing it that way.
Is English not your native language, Uanfala? Your use of it is superb. — Gorthian (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! English isn't my native language, and I mean that in a "full disclosure" kind of way: if I find something confusing, then it might be just the effect of my L1 (ouch, what a dab page). So it might be wise to take my comments above with a pinch or two of salt. Uanfala (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

nonconstructive edit to Shield_(geology)[edit]

Hi, you recently made an edit to an article where you removed Category:Geology_terminology from the article.

Not only is the article about a geological term (word/phrase) like other articles in the category, it contains relevant information on how the term came to be used in geology

The term shield, used to describe this type of geographic region, appears in the 1901 English translation of Eduard Suess's Face of Earth by H. B. C. Sollas, and comes from the shape "not unlike a flat shield"[1] of the Canadian Shield which has an outline that "suggests the shape of the shields carried by soldiers in the days of hand-to-hand combat."[2]

Please use the talk page to discuss your edit to this article.

There's not a lot of articles in the Category:Geology_terminology and it may be redundant with Category:Geology and Glossary_of_geology. Deleting the Category:Geology_terminology may actually be constructive, but removing the category from Shield_(geology) (n.b. how 'geology' is in the title to indicate it is about geological sense of the term) is not constructive. --IPeditor (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Constructive edit to Talk:Shield_(geology)[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to contribute to the talk page!!! You explained yourself well, and I totally related to what you were saying! I made a big comment (addressed to you) on the article talk page, paraphrased: I think the category geology terminology is a little stupid as is, but would be ok if it was basically an index of articles from the geology glossary.

Thank you again! (no reply neccesary) --IPeditor (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

RE: Zika cases updates[edit]

Good morning Gorthian. Thank you for letting me know, I didn't notice that field. I updated the date for yesterday's edit and from now on I'll keep doing the same :). Kind regards, Torne (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^