User talk:Grosscha/Archive 1

Welcome!

Bonsai pic
Hi Grosscha - glad to help! Do let me know if you have any more queries. - MPF 23:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Ce2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ce2.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. 07:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Young love
There are many, many bands. To show true notability, and to earn a place in our encyclopedia, a band must satisfy one of the criteria in WP:MUSIC--Anthony.bradbury 23:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Art Film
Hi, I have been trying to improve the Art Film article. You stated that it looked like I had added in some Indie films. I don't think I have added (or taken away) any movies. I am trying to put the list of movies in order, by decade, and put a little info with each movie (year, writer/director, genre). Before I started, the movies were in Alphabetical order. This is only helpful if you know the name of a movie, and you are trying to find it. I think that an alphabetical list is not useful, because it puts a 1929 film right beside a 2005 film, and then after that is a 1950 movie, and after that is a 1919 movie. It doesn't make sense to me......Anyway, I am not trying to add or remove movie titles at this point. Once the movies are all in, I will put a discussion page on the talk page to discuss removing directors that have too many movies. As far as the content of the article, about the features of art films, they are referenced to source webpages on film. I'll go check and see if it's done properly. Thanks for your letterNazamo 21:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, also, the big bunch of movies at the bottom are the movies that haven't been put in the decade timeline yet. How do you feel about sticking to a simple, uniform approach with the movie info (year, genre, writer/director).Nazamo 21:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just relocated Magnolia to the proper decade. I also put the comments into a reference note. Adding pictures for some well-known films would be great. About adding more info...I believe that it would be fairest, and simplest to stick to undebatable FACTS (like year of production, writer, director...hmm.. even genre is very debatable.. what one person calls a drama, another calls a war film..........anyway, I believe it will look more uniform if the same info is put for each film. If there is a discussion on each film, it will be a) too long and b) subjective discussion, with opinions not desirable for a list of bullets...I think just a short "sound bite" of facts. These are some ideasNazamo 21:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Pink-vodka-thumb (2).jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pink-vodka-thumb (2).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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Importance tag
I have replaced the importance tag on two chemical compounds. Though I agree, both importance and notability do and should categorise into the notability category, the difference is that the notability tag states that the article may not be notable enough for wikipedia, the importance tag says that the content of the article is not adressed, though the article may be notable enough for wikipedia. These two articles do not tell why they are important, and may be not notable (but probably are). Removing the importance tag does not remove a backlog of notability, adding contents does, and we, in the wikiproject chemicals, are working on adding content to these articles, but there is a lot of work to be done. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Best Budy
What is up max ??

Wikipedia is the Best Tjnelso1 00:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Aquino Page Truth Suppression
When I posted corrections to the numerous lies "Sherurcij" preserves on the page about me, I see that you overwrote it with those same lies seconds later. What about the truth frightens you? This is a classic example of why Wikipedia regularly comes in for public criticism in terms of bias and unreliability of its articles, I might add.

If you don't like the "format" of my analysis - quoting and correcting each lie in turn - then how is that different from "Serurcij"s original posting, which lists lie after lie and represents them as facts?

I have repeatedly requested Wikipedia to delete its page about me, because I am tired of such endless lies and character assassination. Since you seem to be interested, I now make the same respectful request to you. I have no wish to argue publicly on your website; I simply wish to be left alone and not slandered, and incidentally not to have myself or my family endangered by the promotion of such lies.

I rather think you would wish the same were such hate campaigns targeted against you and your family.

Sincerely, Maquino 20:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Maquino

Response from Michael Aquino
Grosscha sent me personal mail, but this discussion page appears to be the only way to answer it:

[Grosscha] >>> My Goal here on Wikipedia is to present the facts in a neutral light. Thanks for your massage about the Michael Aquino page. here is what happede when I removed the changes you made: I was watching pages for edits that did not give or show References sporting the new materal on the page. I could not find any References sporting the changes you made, I am vary sorry if I have missed the References you added sporting the changes you had made. I will be looking in to Serurcij"s original posting's, which you clame "lists lie after lie and represents them as facts". If you can Find references that support what you clame than feel free to change the page but with out facts to back up what you are saying you have no grounds to stand on. Do you understand this?? so I ask the Question to you "What about the truth frightens you?"Max 22:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC) <<<

Thank you for your response. As the page is about me, and I personally attest to each and every correction I made (which were all very specific), that should be an acceptable "reference" unless I am pre-designated to be a liar. And I don't think I should be. See my vitae at www.xeper.org/maquino for my lifelong professional record. Additionally, the documentation supporting every point to which I spoke is often extremely large. My wife and I were under this attack for about four years, and my files are bulging. I had already sent two long, point-specific summaries to "Sherurcij" by email (which he ignored), but they would have been far too long to paste into the article. Also, as indicated in the "discussion" section of that article, I had by then realized that "Sherurcij" simply had a character assassination agenda, and anything else sent to him would only be used for that purpose if he could find a way to do so.

The Wikipedia editorial staff has now removed the malicious material and locked the page into a simple, fair, and truthful minimum, for which my wife and I are very grateful, so the problem seems to have been positively solved.

As an aside, in the "history" of that page, the almost-instant overwrite of my corrections was initially attributed to you, but a short time later your name in that "history" entry was replaced with "Sherurcij"s, leading me to think that you and he are the same person [or alternately that he has access to your Wiki account]. That's incidental at this point, but I thought I would mention it in case there's something happening here that you need to know about.

Sincerely, Michael Aquino

Maquino 14:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Maquino

Water ski articles
Hello Grosscha,

I saw you contribute to Jimmy Siemers article, that's why I'm writing you.

I'm editing the Italian Wikipedia Project with all my knowledge about Water Ski, and I think you and all the other english users can do it too.

I hope you'll take a look at this category, so you can have some inspiration and information to grow up the articles.

Since I'm using a lot the English Wikipedia, I think it is right to give my contribute.

Feel free to mailto:info@scinauticando.it send me an e-mail if you need something or if you do not understand somethins ;)

Luzz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.149.225.98 (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Re:Unusual articles
I see your reason, but Nose-picking is indeed on Unusual articles in the science section, so it is a relevant photo. I would like to add it back if you don't mind. It is not my photo, nor am I in it; I just think it is rather funny. You are right, Stanislav is interesting, although not exactly unusual. Thanks for liking my favorite quote! Why was the new section added to my talk page added in the middle? It took me a moment to find it, so it is better to use the + tab at the top. Cheers! Reywas92 Talk 19:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Anti Marketing
I have added a "" template to the article Anti Marketing, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. i kan reed 04:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Apologies for the mixup - I have copied the "creator" notification here from User talk:KNM and swapped it there for a "nominator" one. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Stanislav Petrov
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. --Dhartung | Talk 22:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

FA
Puerto Ricans in World War II made FA. Thank you for your support. Tony the Marine 04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Fritz the Cat (film)
The article has undergone some copyediting. Since this appears to be your only complaint about the article, you may want to reevaluate the article's possible featured article status. (Ibaranoff24 17:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC))

Perfect Pass page upgrades
Hey Grosscha, take a look at the Italian article of the Perfect Pass... New images and informations... Hope it helps Luzz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.149.224.2 (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Everton FA of the day
I noticed you supported the Everton FA status I've now given it a specific date request here as its the date Everton won the Cup Winners Cup. Please comment on it if you agree! SenorKristobbal 18:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Spartywinsbig.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Spartywinsbig.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 23:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Spartywinsbig.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Spartywinsbig.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 23:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A-Class images
Well, it's slightly more complex than that. :) What happens is that GA and FA use their respective symbols because they are Wikipedia-wide processes, and adopted those symbols as they went; on the other hand, A-Class, B-Class, and the other classifications of the assessment scale are done by WikiProjects. Some of them have symbols for their A-Class articles, and others do not (see List of 2007 Macropædia articles for an example). However, it is technically possible to change it Wikipedia-wide, if there's a consensus to do so, as it only requires modifying one template. Is there any particular idea on your mind? Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, but we already do... see Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Statistics for a summary of assessed articles under the assessment scale. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 02:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar
Thank you, Max/Grosscha. This is my first ever barnstar, and I greatly appreciate it. I also appreciate all of your help with the MSU-series articles. If you're curious, take a look at this archive of the MSU page from December, 2005 — less than a year and a half ago. I think we've improved it quite a bit since then. :) Thanks, and Go White!

Lovelac 7 01:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Michigan State University featured topic
Hi. I noticed that you added a couple of articles to the Michigan State University FT. Though it looks like those two articles would fit in the topic, I had to revert your addition because to change a featured topic after it has been promoted it has to go through a nomination process. Check out the second half of the nomination procedure to learn how to propose additions to a topic. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll nominate it for you sometime over the next day or two. I know that it is a bit of an inconvenience to make it have to go through this process, but remember that the featured topics section is not encyclopedia content, it's in the WP namespace.  Featured status is essentially an award for good articles given by the Wikipedia community; so we have to formally talk to the community before it can be given out.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Past FT nominations have set a precident that only nominating the best articles violates the "no obvious gap" requirement. For example, check out Featured topic candidates/Star Wars characters and Featured topic candidates/Scouting. The requriement says that there should be no "missing or stub articles" and any articles about the university which are not included in the topic are "missing" from it. I gave a weak support for the topic on the original nomination because I thought that the main article did a well enough job of covering the information in the minor child articles, but their non-inclusion may come back to hurt the topic if they aren't eventually included. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I supported the topic. I'm just warning you that someone may challenge it in the future if you don't get the other articles up to GA class.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Ardwight.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ardwight.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. grendel|khan 14:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

re: MSU campus
You can just respond to my post on the article talk page once you have addressed the changes. That way, everyone can see the progress for the GA nomination. Thanks! --Mus Musculus (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: MSU logo
If it's free I agree that it would be the better image to use. However, the image description page says that it is under fair use, so if it is actually free you should change the licencing info or we'll keep getting in trouble for it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The seal is not marked as free, because it probably isn't. US law states that works of the federal government are public domain. State governments are allowed to claim copyright. If you have evidence that Michigan does not claim copyrights on its works and seals, then you should inform all of Wikipedia of that. However, I'm sure if that were true, PD-Michigan would be a common licensing tag already. Jay32183 18:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the problem with permission is that it would have to extend to everyone. The Creative Commons Attribution license is a free one, but it is not Wikipedia only. Wikipedia Permission Only license is non-free, and although use to the licence is permitted, it must follow the Non-Free Content Exemption Criteria, which only allows non-free content in article space. You can ask the university if they'll release the copyright, but chances are, they'll say no. Jay32183 19:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies
Your latest proposal seems to have broken ilink...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I'll comment on it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Breaking the Law
Cool Cat I added the FA star to this section of the page is the breaking the Law's of Wikipedia? this is the link Tragedy_of_the_commons Max ╦╩ 15:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not know what "Law's of Wikipedia" are but such an edit is not in violation of any policies I know. That said - it isn't common practice either. Would you be a bit more specific on the nature of the problem? -- Cat chi? 16:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not know if the star was only to be used in the upper right corner of the FA page's. People can be a little crazy about FA stuff, just want to be on the safe side. Max ╦╩ 17:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally featured star is only used on featured on the upper right corner of the FA page and that articles talk page. Those are the "legit" usages. It isn't illegal to use it elsewhere but is often discouraged. There is no reason to overly advertise FA status of an article. FA status is no big deal which is the rationale behind the FA star image itself. -- Cat chi? 17:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:MSU_Libraries_Special_Collections.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:MSU_Libraries_Special_Collections.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  howcheng  {chat} 05:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan rank changed
FYI. I just changed your Wikipe-tan from Lt. Cdr. to Cdr. rank. The reason I did this is a Lt. Cdr. has a gold oak leaf while a Cdr. has a silver oak leaf in their ranking and the Wikipe-tan rank on her shoulders looks more like a Cdr. than a Lt. Cdr. Chris 18:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)