User talk:Jobstbrandt

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Seasalt 02:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC) (Thats the information kit/welcome message)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

In making edits to articles, please quote sources and try to maintain an encyclopedic tone. The piece you added to Desmodromic valve does not match the article structure, quotes no sources, and uses unencyclopedic language. Some language used could easily be construed as negative, but the actual information speaks for itself and is quite interesting. I would urge you to edit it slightly, relocate it in the article, or give it a heading, and add some sources. If you are not insulted by my suggestions and need any assistance, post on my talk page: User talk:Seasalt - Seasalt 10:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Plese give me some direction on encyclopedic tone amd article structure.

I removed your header that you left inside of the the disadvantage section for Desmodromic valve. Thanks for the contribution. Don't need to excuse yourself for editing an article more. In fact, we encourage that kind of behavior because it makes the Wikipedia that much better. Comatose51 15:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

After extensive edititing I don't see the insertions being deleted by the person who put them there. Beyond that, I believe some of them are unwarranted because the foregoing text is self documenting for a reader of resonable education. I don't like to rely on a citation that doesn't say anything more than what I have written, such as the one about kinetic energy which varies as the square of velocity, just for example.

Jobst 18:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Desmodromic
The edits you made to desmodromic suffer from highly specific claims made without citations. This is an unencyclopaedic manner of editing and is against Wikipedia policies. Generally, if it is unverifiable, it is removed. I added "citations needed" notes in the article.

1. Everyone reviews everyone else's work. YOU are the editorial staff as am I and everyone else here.

2. Spell check is your responsibility. If you add content, you can do it offline and use your own package for spell check if you need it. You may find other editors merciless if you evidence a pattern of bad syntax/spelling.

3. There is no such thing as "self documenting" articles on Wikipedia. If you do not cite specific claims, then your edits may be removed. For example, at the Desmodromic "Disadvantages" section you stated "High speed photography showed that at specific resonant speeds, valve springs were lifting off at both ends leaving the valve floating before crashing into the cam on closure." Who did this work? Where was it done? When was it published? If you make any specific claims, they must either be cited or be broad enough that they are general knowledge. Wikipedia is not a mechanical engineering encyclopedia, so your audience is the entire world.

I highly recommend you review the Help and manual of style before you start having your edits removed by other editors. Also, you can try making smaller edits as you learn. Izaakb 20:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments on your main page
Jobst, the problem isn't that you've stepped on anyone's toes -- you haven't -- it's that your additions are highly specific in nature and do not cite verifiable sources. So far, you've added a lot of interesting and compelling information to the desmodromic article, but the audience is not engineers or F1 designers, it is the general world who may not understand the concepts you are discussing. Furthermore, it is Wikipedia policy that any specific claims made be cited and verifiable and that original research is unacceptable. Please read the links I've posted herein.

So there are no toes involved, just official policy! Thanks for participating, please continue. Just CITE YOUR WORK! :) Izaakb 03:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Jobst, you need to post your comments here on the discussion page, not on your User page. The main page is for your "home page" about yourself, not really for discussion.

The point is that the desmodromic article isn't about being a proponent or opponent of desmo valving, the point is that it is just an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia requires a Neutral Point of View in all articles, regardless of content. Cite your work, stick to facts, etc. Your entries in desmodromic come across as criticism rather than a description, and your comments are uncited.

If you cannot cite it, then you cannot post it (without someone deleting it for being unverifiable).

If you read the Wiki Help about editing and the wikipedia philosophy, you'll understand why I am replying to you with the same thing:

1. Cite your work. 2. Remain neutral, stating verifiable facts. 3. No original research.

Izaakb 05:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That you feel I am hostile to desmodromic valve drive may indicatie that you, in contrast, are a proponent of the method. I am listing comparative effects that make desmodromic drive less desireable than it appeared at first appraisal. Essentially the method was based on false assumtions, similar to the air cooled automobile engine, that existed solely for the lack of a water pump seal, a story that also has escaped analysis. Please point out sentences that have a negative tone rather than presenting technical drawbacks of desmodromic drive, which is the subject at hand.

Jobst 18:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Jobst, have you read the Wikipedia policy pages? Whether or not I care about desmodromic valves is not the issue. I have never said that you are hostile to the subject, that is irrelevant.

re: "Please point out sentences that have a negative tone rather than presenting technical drawbacks"

Present all the technical drawbacks you like, but cite your source.

If you read the Wiki Help about editing and the wikipedia philosophy, you'll understand why I am replying to you with the same thing:

1. Cite your work. 2. Remain neutral, stating verifiable facts. 3. No original research.

Please read the policy and cite your work.

Izaakb 19:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Desmodromic to be removed.
Hello, please start editing to add missing citations, otherwise the information you've posted will need to be removed. Thanks!

Also, do not put your signature inside an article, you only need to sign your entries on discussion pages (like this one). Please browse some other articles for examples. Izaakb 14:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Valve types
If you want to take the time to dig up some good references on the topic of desmo vs springed valves, I think that would make a great article unto itself. (I.e. "Comparison of Springed vs Desmodromic Valves"). I have a good bit of work done on desmo valves, mostly from Italy and German sources, also a good list of patents and inventions assoicated with it. It would make a great contribution. Certainly you should be able to find some work on the use of springed valves in early race engines?Izaakb 02:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Izaakb,

I find your removing the article I had posted on the differences and problems with conventional and desmodromic conventional valve drive arbitrary and biased. I get the impression that you did not read the latest edits in which I added citations as I could find them, this subject being one that is not chronicled anywhere on the web that I
 * could find.

I showed a video of high speed photography of spring oscillations, and references to progressive beehive springs in which the oscillations were mentioned and that these springs countered that effect. If you were interested in the comparison between the two kinds of valve drive, I had hoped you would give some pointers that expose other aspects. I found few and discovered the Ducati reference supporting my perspective, albeit without references.

I would expect you to delete that article before mine, mine having more references than the Ducati article. Would you please let me know what the main hurdles are that you felt were not adequately supported. I believe Wikipedia is poorer for not having my article in which I explain why desmodromic drive exists in the first place and why only one manufacturer uses it today when there were many in the past.

I still want to submit the article and hope to pass your standard of validity.

Please let me know your assessment of this subject.

Jobst 03:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Jobst,


 * I can understand how it may feel personally when something you've done gets removed, especially when you've put a lot into it. No article or subject matter is sufficient to avoid referencing when claims are made, and references must be published references, not graphics or video (except where the graphic itself is a product of some verifiable source).


 * The video you posted may have demonstrated what you claimed, but it is unverifiable since there was no author cited, no location where the video was made, and no information to verify it's authenticity.


 * Another point is that the desmodromic article should not be a discussion of the spring valves versus desmodromic valves. In fact, the article should contain almost NOTHING about spring valves because the article isn't about spring valves.  This is why I suggest you write a separate article comparing them -- then you can link both the Desmodromic article and the Poppet valve article with a "Comparison of" type article (this is widely done on Wikipedia and is very useful).


 * It is very simple really. If the article is entitled Clay bricks then the article should not contain extensive information about stone, except as a passing reference to an alternate building material.  As far as other articles which contain un-cited claims, I can only police what I am aware of.  Also, the Ducati article has about a dozen editors monitoring it and to my knowledge it is sufficiently cited.  The difference is that Ducacti is a publicly-traded company and any claims about it can be checked from various sources;  Mechanical valve theory (spring vs desmo vs sleeve ,etc) must be cited if you are going to start discussing things like spring harmonics and lobe inertia of a desmodromic system, etc.


 * If you need help creating another page, and linking it to the other valve articles, I would be happy to help.


 * In the meantime, please read the Wikipedia help pages on content requirements and citation requirements.


 * I suggest you start here.


 * gruss, Izaakb 02:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Izaakb,


 * How is it that when I described the progressive valve spring and could find only beehive springs and no citation, you knew that under poppet valve a broad term that describes the mushroom shaped valve, had the picture I needed. You could have helped by mentioning that link and made other suggestions from the information you claim to have about desmodromic valves.


 * You say you are in favor of getting the background to how desmodromics arose, peaked, adn practically vanished. I don't detect any such interest, only roadblocks.  I'm ready to change my assessment of the matter if you stop sniping at what I write and put in some constructive criticism with pointers to links that you claim to have.


 * I don't understand why you believe no mention of conventional valve drive is appropriate in a discussion of how desmodromic drive started, peaked, and declined. Spring valve closure is where it started and where it is today.  The path to the present is the interesting part, and understanding the hurdles is the essence.  Ideveloped this perspective over the years of working in engine and cam design, that I previously mentined.


 * I suspect some points of my article are new to you or you would have responded differently. I know the essence of cam design is still a mystery to many in the business and I suspect that leaders in formula one are not interested in bringing them up to date.


 * With what part of that do you disagree and why?

Jobst 04:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Original works are not published in encyclopedias. What Wikipedia is not Information must have verifiable sources. Citation Verifiability Any reader must be able to check that the material added has been published by a reliable source. If the data is unpublished it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Phrases such as "consigned to the dustbin of history" are not encyclopedic and could be construed as antagonistic or showing bias. The material may be so new as to be unverifiable for the purposes of an encyclopedia. Anything that attracts controversy must be even better referenced than non-controversial material. Seasalt 05:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Seasalt,


 * Your comments are so vague that I don't see to what part of the article you are referring. You mention wording that doesn't appear in what I wrote just as Izaakb did.  In general, you seem to be saying that the article uses unacceptible style and is unverifiable even though the style to which you refer is not present and citations to the challenged items were added.  Please let me know what specific items need to be changed to meet with reader approval.

Jobst 19:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Jobst, I've explained this as much as I can, and maybe it is a language issue. My agreement or opinion of the claims/facts you posted is irrelevant. If you post something (especially a claim that has a technical or scientific impact) it must be cited to a published, verifiable source. Anything that is not cited will be removed. I won't be commenting further. Have a nice day. Izaakb 22:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome (to the cauldron)
Jobst, after tweaking some of your additions I'm sorry to read that are coming into strife. I've found them interesting and worthwhile but I also understand where Izaakb is coming from. While I don't personally doubt your firsthand experience in the subject to the point that it can be considered self-evident to yourself and your peers, we (the Wiki community) have no reasonable way to vet the experts in the field and hence the need for citations. As with others above, I'm not seeing any animosity towards your point of view but rather the fact that it actually comes across as a 'point of view'...something that we strongly discourage in the quest to become encyclopedic and to avoid flame wars.

It is definitely a struggle to try and adapt to all this but these guidelines have been found to be effective in rejecting the more outlandish statements being made in other Wikipedia articles. I would really hesitate to say that there might a kind of pro-Desmo cabal here, most gearheads live in the world of the rational and quite appreciate new insights to design issues raised.

I too would encourage you to come up with a separate article that compares the merits of sprung vs desmo actuation and then link it to the existing articles. I would be happy to help where I can. Regards, --Hooperbloob 06:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly concur. Izaakb 16:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced OR
Jobstbrandt, please stop adding unsourced OR to the article on brake fade.

Please check out the links provided on that talk page. I did not say that you are not "the source"; I said that you are not "a source". Please see WP:RS. I welcome your editing here but not if you are disregarding the rules and presenting your unsourced theory and discarding sourced material. I do not have to "prove" anything to you. The burden of proof is on you and the only acceptable proof is WP:RS. Nothing personal. Please stop reinserting your material until you comply with the rules here or I will get an admin involved. Thanks --Justanother 04:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Fact-bombing"
Hello, again. Please do not "fact-bomb" the brake fade article. That is disruptive editing as it renders the article difficult to read and is a disservice to the project. Please do not trade one form of disruptive editing for another. Please continue the discussion on the talk page to a result before making disruptive changes to the article. Thanks. --Justanother 17:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

From a cycling newsgroup? Bad village_pump post?
Your username is familiar to me from a cycling newsgroup. I dropped by from time-to-time; more frequently well over a decade ago. You appear to be newish here. I think your posting at Village_pump_%28technical%29 is in the wrong place. You obviously agree because you have started the discussion at Talk:Brake_fade. Perhaps back-out of your Village_pump_%28technical%29 with a small apology, unless others have made it clear all is well already.--SportWagon 21:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been submitted for dispute resolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jobstbrandt

You may reply on the RfC page regarding the dispute.

Izaakb 17:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to Brake fade
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Jobstbrandt! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \.photobucket\.com\/, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 03:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jobst, a robot removed your links. Please see my comments in the article talk. --Justanother 04:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jobst, are you edit-warring with a bot? That is a useless occupation, I think, but who knows. Better to read the image policy. --Justanother 04:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Last warning
Last time I'm telling you this Jobst. If you cannot edit with another person then you have no business here and I will take necessary measures --Justanother 01:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see Ownership of articles and please don't get all about how I am violating that until you demonstrate that you belong here. Thanks. --Justanother 01:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Your choice of using a robot to edit rather than excghanging ideas makes communication for improving the article difficult. Your putting lack of citations and rules ahead of content as reason for not discussing the issues of what needs citation, similar. Look at the base article drum brake and notice that there are no citations. The rest of that article explains many concepts that are not sourced but reasonably logical and credible. If all of Wikipedia were to be treated as you treat the Brake fade article there would not be much to read. On the other hand you might, for instance, import the glowing brake images to which I gave links rether than delete them, so readers can see for themselves that disk brakes operate glowing hot and what temperatures are associated with which colors. How about it? I think we are close to getting a good article. As I said, my last edit didn't change the gist of things, but rather said it in a more concise manner. If we had a scratchpad for previewing changes, I'd be for that too.Jobst 06:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is what I mean, Jobst, You do not understand something and assign bad faith to me. That is not MY rebot. Robots are set up by various people to do various things. In your case, to remove an illegal image. Jobst, there are many thousands of active editors here. This place is a zoo. Take it easy and have fun. I think we are making an interesting article. You DO need to provide sources but I am not rushing you on that. I would rather you got the feel of editing here and working well with others before we worry about more rules. --Justanother 06:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's it
Well, I tried. I really tried. But you don't seem to want to work with anyone and refuse to respect the edits of others and rather than discuss it or respond to all these warnings you just keep going your disruptive way. I am going to have to pursue this on administrative channels then. Good day. --Justanother 04:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What's it?

You seem to believe your version of the FACTS are final and cannot be edited while at the same time you cite Wikipedia rules that denounce your style of maintaining your version. Maybe you didn't read what I changed. Much of it did not alter the gist of what was said although it used more concise wording. After you pointed out that "maladjusted brakes" have drum expansion problems, I recalled suffering that problem before self adjusting brakes became popular. Why do you want to omit self adjusting brakes when they are described in Wikipedia?

I don't sense you trying "really hard" because you don't discuss your concepts nor explain them. The gas bearing relies on a less than credible source that doesn't explain how it can occur. I liked that there is an image inserted on that page but it is of a truck brake and mentions maladjustment. That doesn't help the article. Defending the gas bearing hypothesis doesn't improve credibility of the article either. You'll note the Wikipedia reference to gas bearings doesn't support it either.Jobst 04:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not disturbed your WP:OR on the gas. Why are you talking about that? All I did was add some well cited info on truck brakes and clean up the prose. If you cannot stand your prose to be edited then you should not edit here because that is what we do. But, all due respect, the way you edit, by editing off-line and pasting in, is dangerous for an experienced and careful wikipedia editor and you do not seem to be that. Yet. Just chill out with undoing my work; I am not undoing yours even though many other editors would tear it apart as OR. I am really bending over backwards (as my friend says) to see if you can learn to edit here. This is NOT about fighting and if you want to fight please go somewhere else. This is about co-operation. Thanks for continuing to try. --Justanother 05:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you really surprised? Izaakb 14:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * IDK. I think I know what is going on. I googled him and saw some of his writing on that cycle group from about 10 years ago and it looked like he could be an asset here. Who knows. --Justanother 15:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference to posting one's opinion and philosophies in a discussion site versus writing encyclopaedic articles. That's the problem.  Izaakb 18:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

As user:Justanother mentioned, this is not new. Both drum brakes and desmodromic valve drive were last dealt with in engineering publications so long ago that only "common knowledge" remains, accurate technical references having vanished. The nature of the drum fade subject is apparent in that a technical report on the cause of drum brake fade can hardly be found on the web, such reports having been relegated to history. Unfortunately there are many references to the mechanics interpretation of the brake fade, although none with a technical basis for the mechanism. Besides, many of these are repeating this story in the context of disk brakes where the scenario cannot apply.

I've come across this often since the days when disk brakes were introduced in the early 1960's and have had exchanges about them off and on. Here is an example: Brake fade. The same is true about advantages of desmodromic valve drive.Jobst 01:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wankel engine
Your text is sure not documented! I think you have never seen a Wankel engine from inside. In other respects would you know that common piston ring material like Goetze cast iron IKA-3 and IKA-33 is used for the apex seals. Trochoiden surface chrome, chrome molybdenum, molybdenum combined with construction steel apex seals, Nikasil etc. The side surface is reagular cast iron or over eutectic alu (KSxx etc). ;) The cooling surface is smaller as for a comparable reciprocating piston engine and then should you compare the same displacement volume! Chamber volume is two times for the displacement! A 1,3ltr Wankel has a displacment of a 2,6ltr and only a surface like a 1,3ltr 4T reciprocating piston engine! That why the water cooler is smaller per kW! --HDP (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "This thermodynamic effect has dissuaded most engine manufacturers from further pursuing a reliable rotary engine, some having spent enormous sums on development to make the Wankel mechanically competitive with reciprocating engines. This is also the reason the Wankel is not found in automotive competition. (emphasis mine)"


 * Like Mazda's RX-8 in such classes that it falls into, Mazda's performance at the Le Man's 24-hour race, and Formula Mazda? Wankel engines are found in automotive competition even today.  To claim otherwise, is pretty much in denial of reality. --Puellanivis (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Mazda holds the record in reliability in Le Mans and Mazda used only Wankel engines in Le Mans.--HDP (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "This is also the reason the Wankel is not found in automotive competition."
 * ??? ORLY?
 * http://www.starmazda.com/
 * http://www.mazdamotorsports.com/  izaakb    ~talk  ~contribs  17:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Or he should read this. RE challenges the world--HDP (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Or this Team Spencer --HDP (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Engineering
I was disappointed when I recently visited the Wankel pages, to find them taken over by Wankel faithful who can paint a rosy theoretical picture of the success and future of that engine.

I found that requests for citation were inserted for text that was supported by the surrounding descriptions. When I referenced the statements, these citations were deleted. I believe the explanation that the Wankel had enormous sums spent by NSU, Daimler Benz, Citroën, Curtiss-Wright, GM, and Ford among others, should raise a question on how that came to pass with no one except Mazda still working on the development.

I think that an explanation of this situation would be more useful than to delete what I wrote with citations. This is much like the Ducati faithful deleting my explanation of why no one pursues desmodromic valve drive any longer, computer analysis having made cam contours something anyone can develop. My explanation of that was repeatedly deleted.

This is what is weak at Wikipedia in the absence of umpires where the
 * faithful can write what they believe.

As I mentioned, the Wankel has the same thermodynamic flaw that rotary engines before it had. That flaw is that there is one combustion 'chamber' for all the 'pistons' and the same for intake. This hot and cold difference defies lubrication and use of common materials as in the piston engine, the temperatures being cited from Wikipedia itself.

Please do not delete text on the web page without replacing it with an amended explanation of the points made.

Jobst (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This illustrates only your poor knowledge about Wankel Engines.

Some manufacturers

Wankel AG, Wankel Supertec, Wankel Rotary (DB!) Aixro, Parilla, Dimond Engines (a part of Mitsubishi), UEL, Mazda (acquired by Ford in the seventies), Banglore, Powersports, Rothor, etc.


 * Rotary vs. piston


 * Lighter weight
 * Because there is no need for pistons, connecting rods or a crankshaft, the main engine block of the rotary engine is correspondingly smaller and therefore lighter in weight with better handling and performance.


 * Smaller size
 * Proportional to its output, the rotary engine is substantially smaller in size than a conventional engine. The new RENESIS is about the same size as a small four-cylinder in-line engine. The rotary engine’s small size is not only beneficial with regard to weight, but also allows improved handling, optimal positioning of the drivetrain and increased space to be given over to driver and passenger comfort.


 * Lower vibration
 * All the parts in a rotary engine spin continuously in one direction, rather than violently changing directions like the pistons in a conventional engine. Rotary engines are also internally balanced minimising vibration levels.


 * Higher power
 * A rotary engine’s power delivery is smoother. Because each combustion event lasts through 90 degrees of the rotor's rotation, and the output shaft spins three revolutions for each revolution of the rotor, therefore each combustion event lasts through 270 degrees of the output shaft's rotation. This means that a single-rotor engine delivers power for three-quarters of each revolution of the output shaft. Compared to a single cylinder piston engine, in which power is delievered to only a quarter of each revolution of the output shaft.


 * Higher reliability
 * The rotary engine has far fewer moving parts than a comparable four-stroke piston engine. A two-rotor rotary engine has three main moving parts: the two rotors and the output shaft. Even the simplest four-cylinder piston engine has at least 40 moving parts, including pistons, connecting rods, camshaft, valves, valve springs, rockers, timing belt, timing gears and crankshaft.


 * Poor thermodymanics

The items you list are mechanicl and the obvious aspects of the Wankel that make it look like a better solution than reciprocating engines. However, they ignore the thermodynamic aspect, the one that makes all the undesireable mechanism you mention necessary. It is the thermodynamic aspect that is overlooked because it is invisible and not a piece of hardware. That the initial car companies that spent large sums in R&D (NSU, Daimer-Benz, GM, Ford, Curtiss-Wright, etc) are no longer pursuing the design needs explanation if it isn't a functional flaw that couldn't be competitively overcome.

Jobst (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:ACS water Susten.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:ACS water Susten.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 14:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)