User talk:Mstroeck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some older and uninteresting discussions are archived here: Archive 1

[edit] DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Dromornithidae, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

And what a great article it is! I wish I saw more in that section so thorough and well-written. Kudos! --Dvyost 00:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Dvyost beat me to the congratulations, but at least I have the distinction of having nominated you. This is really DYK of the highest caliber. Excellent work. --Aranae 01:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} as this week's WP:AID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

[edit] Great image

Image:Carbon-nanotube-naming-scheme.png is amazing, thank you for creating and uploading it. silsor 18:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! However, I created a better, more detailed version, which you can now find at Image:Types of Carbon Nanotubes.png. Mstroeck 01:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Eight_Allotropes_of_Carbon.png is pretty damn awesome too if I say so myself. Jongpil Yun 11:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Images

I really like the new images you're uploading but I recommend that you upload them to the commons that way other wikipedias can use them easily too. Thanks a lot. -- Borb 00:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

*Slaps himself with a trout*. Thank you for the tip, rather stupid of me. I forgot that these images are not language-specific... I would appreciate any feedback about those images! I'm not a chemist, so I might mess up from time to time... I also replied on your talk-page, concerning the amino acid images I just created. Mstroeck 00:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The guanidinium group of Arg and the imidazolium group of His have planar structures. I have removed the images untill you fix them. Why did you go with "sticks/tubes/pipes"? The "balls and sticks" models looked a lot better. -- Boris 19:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. Mstroeck 21:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amino Acids

I'm kind of busy right now, but I'll give them a quick look over when I get a break. Can you tell me what you based your models on (did you use a specific site or book to base them off?) and if the amino acids you made are in their L or D configuration? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mouthfeel

Hello, Mstroeck. Do you have permission to post the content from here to the mouthfeel article? Thanks, Kjkolb 03:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a good question! I got the text from a company intranet, where only original and licence free information should be posted, I was not aware of that other source. My friend Google now also told me that the exact same text appears here. As far as I know, these temrs and their definitions are industry standards, but who knows where the original copyright for that list lies and whether anybody actually has a copyright on it. What do you propose? Mstroeck 03:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent votes on Featured Picture Candidates

Hi Dbenbenn. Please note that some of your recent votes on FPs are not valid. Read the guidelines at Wikipedia:What is a featured picture before you vote an any other images. An image does not have to be uploaded to commons to be considered as a featured picture here on Wikipedia. If you think that should change, propose it on some talk page, but please leave it out of the voting area. Please strike or amend your opposing votes that didn't state any other reasons for declining your support. Thank you. Mstroeck 12:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Who says they are not valid? I feel that one requirement for an image to "exemplif[y] Wikipedia's very best work" is that it be located on the right project. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates merely says "Where possible, objections should provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." I have provided a specific rational that is extremely easy to address.

So, I'm not going to strike my recent votes. I want to get others thinking about this issue, and I felt the best way to do that was to voice a handful of oppositions. But don't worry: I don't plan start a huge campaign or anything! dbenbenn | talk 13:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying "Object, because not on Commons." is like saying "Object, because I have a nasty headache.". Both have absoulutely nothing to do with the quality of the picture, and both have absolutely nothing to do with the consensus that editors have reached on criteria for voting on FPCs. Yes, the reason for your opposal is easy to adress, but it's not very productive, and in some cases downright stupid. Images in FPC often undergo extensive changes during the course of their voting period. By the way, if you want the picture on Commons, just take it and upload it. However, I think it would be more reasonable to do so after potential problems have been resolved, which typically is after voting has ended.

If you have a point that might be controversial, it's just more reasonable to add it as a comment, not as a vote. You also have a higher chance of success of actually getting heard when you make such proposals on a talk page, where they don't tick people off. Mstroeck 14:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that Special:Upload has for a long time said "Uploading your files to Commons instead of here is highly recommended." There's nothing controversial about the idea that free pictures shouldn't be uploaded here.

Also, I fail to see the relevance of the fact that "Images in FPC often undergo extensive changes during the course of their voting period." The Commons is a wiki, just as this project is; images there can be changed as easily as images here.

Finally, about your suggestion that if I want a picture on the Commons, I "should just take it and upload it". I have in fact uploaded over a thousand images to the Commons. But even if I were to spend all of my effort on moving images, I doubt I could keep up with the rate of uploads here. A much more effective method is to try to get uploaders to put their images on the Commons in the first place.

Anyway, I'm sorry that I ticked you off by opposing your picture. For what it's worth, my vote will obviously not have an effect on the featured status of Image:Eight Allotropes of Carbon.png. dbenbenn | talk 16:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, I just object to your voting for reasons that aren't generally accepted. I just don't think that's a good idea. To clarify things, I'm not ticked off because you opposed one of my pictures, that doesn't matter at all. I wouldn't even have written all of this if you had just opposed mine, because it won't have any effect. Featured pictures is first and foremost about quality, and about exposing Wikipedia's users to some of the excellent work that is created here. We should not make it harder to do that by opposing pictures that are otherwise fine. Mstroeck 17:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright. WP:FPC#Supporting and opposing doesn't really explain much about what reasons are "generally accepted"---maybe there's an opportunity for someone who's an expert about how that page works to clarify it. I honestly did not think I was making "invalid" votes. (How about my comment at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Inside a Carbon Nanotube?)

I'm highly in favor of "exposing Wikipedia's users" to these excellent pictures; that should go for all of Wikipedia's users, not just the ones who use this English edition. What do you think: could we add a note to WP:FPC#Nomination procedure encouraging people to put their FPCs on the Commons? dbenbenn | talk 17:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly my point! I absolutely think we could -it's not a bad idea- but we should bring it up on WP:FPC's talk page. That is a popular page frequented by many people with strong opinions, acting without talking about it first will just cause trouble and minimize the chances of an otherwise pretty useful idea. I encourage you to head over there and propose it :-) This is one of the times where being bold and editing away is probably not the best idea. Mstroeck 17:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When using welcome templates

Please don't forget to use Subst: before the template name, for example {{subst:welcome}} it saves us some server load. Thanks Tawker 00:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh, sorry, I forgot that on my last batch of welcoming... Mstroeck 19:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Picture

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Types of Carbon Nanotubes.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations, and thanks for making it for us. Raven4x4x 06:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Eight Allotropes of Carbon.png, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Another one! Congratulations once more. Raven4x4x 04:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Argo Merchant, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 03:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DNA Overview

I commented on Image:DNA_Overview.png at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/DNA Overview. Very impressive; 304 articles in enwiki link to this image! Have you tried "FlyingAlongDNA" (analogous to Image:FlyingThroughNanotube.png)? Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Walter! Thank you for your feedback. I have tried to do a "Flying through DNA" picture, but unfortunately I can't get it to work, it just does not look very interesting... Mstroeck 21:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Michael; I wasn't sure it would work either, but my curiousity is satisfied thanks to your efforts. I'm pleased to see your barnstar award below! It is well-deserved. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No problem

T'was my pleasure. I monitor Template_talk:Did you know to make sure all articles on it are minimally cleaned up, categorized (surprising amount of uncategorized stuff shows up there) and Cite.php converted. Circeus 19:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea :-) Keep it up! Mstroeck 21:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spice_Girls_Historical_Preservation_Society

why was my article deleted???? :s unsigned comment by User: Spice Superstar

Please read my reply on your talk-page and this. Nobody involved in the deletion believes the organization even exists and you did not provide any references. The fact that there is not a single Google hit on the topic does not help. Mstroeck 21:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A belated and much deserved barnstar

I award Mstroeck this Graphic Designer's barnstar for producing featured diagrams of outstanding quality, and for the significant achievement of getting Wikipedia credited as a source by MIT ~ Veledan • Talk 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mstroeck. I can't believe I'm privileged to be the first person to hand you one of these! Keep up the astounding work :-) ~ Veledan • Talk 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm extremely flattered! Thank you very much, Veledan! Wikipedia is an amazing and strange thing, isn't it? All it takes to make my day is somebody I don't even know putting a little star on my user-page. Again, thank you very much :-) Mstroeck 21:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Cicisbeo, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Wikizwerg 00:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA

I didn't mean to imply that in-line citations are required. The criteria just say "referenced" which de facto has become subjective to different editors. If you (or anyone else) disagrees with my decision, you are free to promote the article to GA status as well. I don't know exactly which article you are referring to, but usually if I fail an article it's because it has no references or very few, or far too many which appear to be dumped from google scholar. Perhaps in the comment that you are referring to, I mixed up my actual GA vote with suggestions for the article in general, which I usually make as well. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page.

[edit] Michael Stroeck images

Michael, I would like to use you fine buckyball image in a book I am publishing SOON. Please contact me ASAP at rwitzig@mac.com. Cheers, Richard Witzig New Orleans

Answered via email. (In short: Go ahead, credit me and Wikipedia if space permits.) -- Mstroeck 20:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Cherries.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cherries.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry. The image is self-made and I intended to release it under the GFDL. Fixed now. Mstroeck 13:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FPC Apologies

I have added a rather harsh critique of your DNA FPC. My apologies, it looks like you've done a lot of work on it. I hope I haven't got anything too wrong with what I've said, but there appeared to be a few errors, please let me know if I've messed up or misinterpreted. Sorry. --jjron 08:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DNA FPC nomination

The end result of the nomination process for your DNA image was that it was not promoted. There were some questions about the accuracy/design philosophy of the diagram. A modified version that addresses at least some of the concerns expressed in the nomination discussion would likely be promoted, judging by the comments. The utility of such a diagram is obvious - I hope you'll resubmit a new version sometime. Sincerely, -- moondigger 01:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Nice meeting you. I also thank you for correcting me: [1]. --Bhadani 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Bhadani! Nice meeting you, too! I was reading through your amazing list of contributions, and I thought correcting a small typo couldn't hurt :-) Keep up your great work! mstroeck 06:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshots

Hello, Mstroeck. I notice you recently removed the {{badJPEG}} tag from Image:Eksi Sozluk Main.JPG, saying that screenshots should not be in SVG. You are absolutely correct; SVG makes no sense for screenshots. However, the JPEG format is also a poor choice for screenshots. The best format to use is PNG. The {{badJPEG}} tag says that the image is saved as a JPEG when it should be a PNG or an SVG. Clearly in this case SVG is inappropriate, but the {{badJPEG}} tag is still justified, since the image should be a PNG. Please let me know if you have any questions. —Bkell (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry. I hand't seen that template before, and must have skimmed over the mention of PNG... I of course agree that PNG would be a better choice, but I think there should be specific template for it. The two formats are, IMHO, warranted under completely different circumstances. If you are involved in the process that created that template, I would like to suggest splitting it into two separate ones, one for vector-type graphics, and one for raster images. mstroeck 18:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That might be a good idea, although there are many cases where neither PNG nor SVG is clearly superior over the other. Maps, for example, should ideally be in the SVG format, but it's often rather difficult and time-consuming to create an SVG from a raster image. Suppose a map was converted from a GIF to a JPEG before it was uploaded to Wikipedia. Clearly this map should not be a JPEG, since a losslessly compressed version exists; so currently it should be tagged with {{badJPEG}}. If we split the template into two tags, should we say the image should be replaced with a PNG or with an SVG?

In any case, you should probably bring up your ideas at Template talk:BadJPEG, where several other interested editors will be able to read them. —Bkell (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I should have mentioned {{ShouldBeSVG}}, but I often forget that it exists. Perhaps that's what you're looking for. —Bkell (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] template:controversial (history)

The following was originally posted by mstroeck at Duncharris' talk-page: Hi! I've been bold and edited the template you created to reflect the special importance of clearly stating your sources when editing controversial topics. I'm seeing too many huge, heavily edited articles with tiny, tiny, reference sections, and I think we should at least make people aware of that on the respective talk-pages.I hope you agree with me, but I'm of course very open to discussion :-) mstroeck 22:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, yeah, I made template:controversial (history) because template:controversial dumps everything into category:Wikipedia controversial topics, which is way too big to be useful. But then I forgot about it. Maybe someone with a pet bot can get it to sort them out. — Dunc|☺ 22:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "sort them out" ? mstroeck 23:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

e.g. talk:Conservatism needs to be sorted into template:Controversial (politics). — Dunc|☺ 14:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:World Oil market timeline

Hi Michael,

I've left my response to you on my talk page, as per your notice at the top. Thanks! Green451 16:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Michael,

Yeah, I was breaking up the chronology into decades but Green451 told me that he and Charlie Huggard were almost done doing the same, so I've been helping them wikify it from here. Writing the summary for each decade and for the introduction will take a little more research but we'll probably get more help once we post the article up. This was a great idea for an article. If your interested, I've also been trying to expand oil politics. medleysoul 03:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

On 22 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hansa Carrier, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for letting me know, I didn't even notice it went up there! --mstroeck 09:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Request

I'd like a diagram for zinc finger selection proceedures for an article I'm writing on 'zinc finger chimera'. I can supply an image from a journal article, that you might base your work on. Do you have time for such an undertaking? --Username132 (talk) 11:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Username132! Thanks for your request. Please send me the image via email, and I'll see what I can do. I'd be glad to help, but I guess it depends on the complexity, because I have a rather tight schedule at the moment. You can reach me via [censored]. --mstroeck 12:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if it makes a difference, but I removed you email after copying it, so that no-one else gets the information unauthorised. Thanks. --Username132 (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] support

Thanks for your comments at the Flying Spagetti Monster FP voting page. Sometimes we in the States lose track of the larger perspective and get dragged into the debate. Debivort 21:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I was just letting off some steam... mstroeck

[edit] Image:Oil Prices 1861 2006.jpg

Can you please source that image. You made it... but, where is the data from? Thanks. gren グレン 00:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for answering so late. Unfortunately, I cannot find the source anymore, but it was on the DoE website. Anyway, that's data that can be confirmed on a myriad of websites and other sources. I will try to find one for you. mstroeck 13:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "We have featured articles on Pokemon..."

(Note: I'm in no way a "Pokemon" fan. In fact, I can't stand that garbage, and if I had my way, Pokemon would have never existed.) I'd like to ask you to shy away from the "but there are ### articles on Pokemon" or "but we have featured articles on Pokemon" defense. This has been discussed by many people before; the key is that even the most obscure Pokemon will be known by millions of people. Hundreds upon hundreds of Pokemon I've never heard of (and hope to never hear of) have been featured in multiple video games, films, shows, card games, books, etc. While I hate to say it, even the least-known Pokemon is one hundred times more notable than my favorite band, which qualifies for a WP article. Thus, comparing someone or something with questionable notability (whether it's sufficiently notable for WP or not) to a Pokemon really doesn't stand up. -- Kicking222 00:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Just in case readers are wondering, Kicking222 is talking about James Kim. mstroeck

I see no need to shy away from that argument just because some people are unable to understand its implications. It is not an argument against articles on Pokémon, but an argument against systemic bias. You do not have to agree, but in my world a real-life journalist, TV-host and entrepreneur who gets killed in an incredibly freak way and who is reported on by by practically every major news outlet in the US is more notable than Bulbasaur by a wide margin. If we let people write elaborate dissertations on Pokémon, we need to let people who care about technology journalism, wilderness safety and the media's reaction on such cases do the same. Nothing is to be gained by knowledge about Bulbasaur. Studying this case and the mistakes that were made might be a very interesting lesson for many people. Deleting "James Kim" would be utterly ridiculous. mstroeck 08:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)