User talk:Triesault

Image copyright problem with Image:Flw35.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Flw35.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Flags
Please see Manual_of_Style_%28icons%29. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Message left on my page
You left me a message asking me not change things away from CE and BCE. Apart from the fact that all the leutres at my Univeristy use AD and BC, and refute the change... I also refute the change because the point of the year system we use is to mark the birth of Christ (even if not most likely historically innacurate). Nonetheless, this is what the year system we use is supposed to commemore which is why "Before Christ" and "Anno Domini" are appropriate and completely acceptable notations to use, in my humble personal opinion. --Jammydodger (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The WP Manual of Style has no preference. Just as yours is with AD and BC (which is actually my "inborn" inclination), mine is with BCE and CE. I would ask you, though, NOT to change the "secular" to the "Christian" in any WP article, since such a change, in my opinion, gives evidence of a stance that WP should avoid as POV. Note, in your message, the use of the word "we," which must mean "we Christians." Well, WP is not just for Christians. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Stating that your university uses the Anno Domini does not support your claim. I found my university uses the Common Era designation and it's more the preference  of the author of the text book or the teacher. Triesault (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in your User Space
Hey there Triesault, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Triesault. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page.


 * See a log of images removed today here


 * Shut off the bot here


 * Report errors here.

Ridiculous
Every member of the House of Representatives deserves the honorific "The Honorable". Furthermore, providing the accurate and specific denomination to which each Member belongs is appropriate and fitting. I resent your claim that they be reverted, and I will be seeking to resolve this via editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.220.206 (talk) 05:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether you resent my edits or not is irrelevant as they were justified. Please read MOS:HONORIFIC for their proper use. It looks like the rest of the wiki community has seen your edits as well and have resolved this issue by also reverting your edits. --Triesault (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You are violating the three-revert rule on several articles.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. - Zhang He (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I added a 3RR report on User:24.3.220.206, the one with all of "the honorific" changes. I won't touch any of those changes until the 3RR is decided. Thought I'd let you know because you were involved in the editing, although I would characterize your editing as violating 3RR, but rather as responding to disruptive editing. Shadowjams (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How exactly should I respond to something like this in the future? I see a user make a huge number of unnecessary that are uncalled for and they need to be revered. I left a message on his user page but instead of responding he went back and revered all my changes. With such a large number of edits whats the best way to physically undo them? Is this a feature that only an admin would have?--Triesault (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

BCE/CE
Hi, Triesault. I noticed that you've done a few edits, particularly this one, where you've arbitrarily changed AD/BC to BCE/CE. As per WP:ERA, this goes against Wikipedia guidelines. I have reverted your edit at that page. If you have any concerns, please let me know. Thanks. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 01:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Titles
Just letting you know, in regards to this edit, I would like to inform you that the word "in" is not captalized in titles. You are wrong. • GunMetal Angel  00:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing this to my attention but I was just following the trend of capitalization schemes I found throughout Wikipedia. Looking up the correct use of capitalization in titles, I found multipurpose words like "in" should be lowercase if they are functioning as preposition and capitalized when its used as an adverb. You didn't have to be a jerk about it though. I'm just trying to help. :\ --Triesault (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wasn't being a jerk, I was just pissed. Not to you, but ya know. Rough week and I'm sick of doing big reverts on the article. Anyway in titles, "Is" is capitalized, so is "It". "In" however, is not capitalized. See the titles for articles like Alice in Chains or Dead in My Arms. So anyway, yeah, my apologies again if I was rude, I'm really nice or a huge jackass at other times. I gotta take more naps. =/ -- GunMetal Angel  16:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Quantum clock
I undid your edit in the Quantum clock wiki page. In the case of the article, 37 is just an arbitrary number and it doesn't actually hold any significant meaning other than showing the power (magnitude) of this clock. Thank you for all of your hard work that you have put into Wikipedia. :) --Triesault (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary numbers and numerological explanations rationales
Hallo there Mr. Triesault,
 * I thought that someone sooner or later would have undid that edit.
 * But I can give a rationale for that edit: I have been fascinated by Arthur Eddington (1882-1994) conjectures to considere the fine structure constant (at the time "considered related to the integer 137") as "it could be obtained by pure deduction".
 * He seems also to have used it in order to calculate the number of protons in the universe through the Eddington number.
 * We now know today that the fine structure constant


 * $$ \alpha= \frac{1}{137.035\,999\,679(94)}$$
 * and that it hasn't got an integer at the denominator of the fraction that defines it.
 * But still... until we don't have any physical interpretations as we had for the fine structure constant I don't think we can dismiss any theories that attempt to give an explanation to this number... in the case of the quantum clock the fact that it seems to be 37 times more precise than the atomic clock.
 * So I guess our conversation should be moved to the quantum clock discussion page if this is okay for you.
 * Please consider that 37 and 137 are both prime numbers (so there are not just "ordinary numbers"... and  prime numbers  show really odd and bizarre behaviours as, for example, in the Ulam Spiral.


 * Thanks for your time and interest in the topic, and for your contribution in wikipedia.


 * Yours faithfully.

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe you are putting way too much thought into this. There is no evidence to suggest that "37 times more powerful than the atomic clock" has any significant meaning. However, if you can show this '37' is not arbitrary then we could add a section to that article to describe it. --Triesault (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hallo there. Maybe I wrote "precise" and not "powerful"... and maybe you are right about the fact that I "could be putting too much thought into this". Anyway, if you are interested, there is a discussion proposal about renaming the "quantum clock" article into "quantum logic clock". Thanks for your time. Cheers. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Nobel Laureates in University Infobox
Can you please discuss you proposed addition of Nobel laureates to the university infobox here or here? I don't think it's a necessary addition for any articles so it would be best to discuss it in a centralized area rather than having the same discussion several times in different locations. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right, I should have looked through the various talk pages before adding the information to the info box. I decided to add the information after I saw it on MIT's info box, which, based on the pages revision history, you are familiar with. Before adding it, I saw that the Nobel Laureates section was added by Umofomia more than 4 years ago so I assumed it was an accepted addition and thought nothing of it. I will add the discussion to Template talk:Infobox university. --Triesault (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Added a new section to discuss this topic on the Template talk:Infobox university page. --Triesault (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Burning Man, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jerry James. 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) 09:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GundamWing-EndlessWaltz.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:GundamWing-EndlessWaltz.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Survey Invite
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_eRkrtMnTM1lOkKh&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Marvel konami code.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Marvel konami code.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)