User:SirGrant/Talk Archives

Phenol red

Hello, I noticed that you uploaded a version of Image:Phenol_Red.gif. The picture does not show the correct structure of phenol red; see here. Could you upload a corrected version? Thanks and cheers, AxelBoldt 20:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The structures in the three links you gave me are all identical and correct, but they are different from the structure you uploaded. Furthermore, the substance can exist in two structures, depending on pH. See here. Ideally, we'd have pictures of both. Best regards, AxelBoldt 20:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It turns out we already have the high-pH structure from the German Wikipedia: image:phenolrot.png, so we're fine for now; later we could upload the cyclic low-pH structure if needed. Cheers, AxelBoldt 20:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of edits

Earlier you reverted these edits here [1] and [2]. I was wondering if you had any particular reason why because I was following the Wikipedia:Citation templates format and updating the article. Personally I don't see any reason why these edits were reverted and would like to know why they were changed because in my point of view those edits expand on the citations used and follow wikipedia policy. SirGrant 01:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh I just read your thing at the top, if you could respond on my talk page that would be preferable. Thank you SirGrant 01:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sincere apologies. I did not intend to revert those edits. I'm not sure what happened but what seems most likely is that I was trying to revert this vandalism (using User:Lupin's Anti-vandal tool and User:Gwernol beat me to it, and for some reason the tool did not alert me that someone had already reverted it. Anyway, sorry about that. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 01:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Spam.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Spam.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Abu Badali 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My Response: I have updated the image with a version that is under the GNU free license. This new version of the image meets wikipedia policy.

Spam.png

You earlier tagged an image I uploaded spam.png as violating fair use because free alternatives exist. I searched around and replaced and updated the image with a newer version. This version complies with wikipedia policy. The software shown is freely available under a free license as well as the source it was obtained from releases it's content under the GNU public license. The image and it's description can be found here. Image:Spam.png SirGrant 01:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful, :SirGrant. Sometimes some editors react too defensively when other users point problems in their upload, but you haven't done so. Congratulations for the good work and good reaction. Keep on the good editing. Best regards, --Abu Badali 10:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:TheBroken.jpg

Hi. Thanks for uploading Image:TheBroken.jpg to the commons. Just a couple of things:

1. Images that are tagged with {{subst:ncd}} (which changes to {{NowCommons}}) should not be tagged with {{orphan image}}.
2. JPEG images should be left in JPEG unless someone has edited them. PNG images are lossless, but if an image is already in JPEG, the damage has been done and a conversion to PNG just increases the file size.

Thanks again for your contributions! —Remember the dot (t) 01:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the tag message. Oh actually the PNG image is higher quality. I was the one who took the image and it was originally in PNG format but I had converted it to JPEG and posted it because for a moment I had forgotten that PNG is higher quality. So I went back and posted the original PNG which is not a conversion of the JPEG but the first screenshot taken so I don't think it should be deleted. SirGrant 04:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry so just to clarify once again the PNG image is the original the .JPEG is the converted one. Sorry for the confusion SirGrant 04:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

All right, thanks for telling me that. You can get rid of the JPEG copy by adding something like {{speedydelete|This image was uploaded in error and is not used. The correct, higher-quality copy is available at [[:Image:TheBroken.png]]}} to Commons:Image:TheBroken.jpg. —Remember the dot (t) 05:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

William Hung

Thank you SO much for tagging that! I'm inclined to think the whole section should be eliminated. I've already cut 75% from the section, but didn't have the heart to cut the whole thing. Thanks! Cleo123 07:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:PGPgui1.png

True, a similar image could be created from GPG, but I don't have a GUI version of GPG, or even a working command-line version of it. So unless someone else creates a replacement image, I'm out of luck. — Loadmaster 06:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kevin Rose.png and the other images

Hi SirGrant. The e-mail permission is fine, and I will now update the image description pages. Thank you for doing the permission stuff properly, and keep up the good work! By the way, the images need to be categorized (at Commons). I would like to do it myself, but I have no idea who these people are. Can you take care of it? Kjetil_r 01:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Silver nitrate.gif

I see you tagged this image as "orphaned, fair use", but the copyright applied isn't a fair use copyright. Thoughts? Rklawton 15:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

IfD isn't necessary. In the future, you can use {{db-redundantimage|replacement image name.ext}} instead. Cheers, Rklawton 17:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:SirGrant Saber.png

I don't think someone can hold copyright for a sword just because it's glowing... Did someone requested deletion of other lightsabres? A.J. 09:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Your photo is pretty cool... You look like a young Jedi Master who has just made his first lightsaber and admires it in awe :) I actually put your photo in several language versions of Wikipedia that lacked ilustration for their articles. Thanks for your contribution! A.J. 09:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Toys like spacecraft models, action figures are copyrighted indeed, because they conatin fair amount of creativity, that's the difference. Cheers! A.J. 21:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Routerset.PNG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Routerset.PNG. 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 10:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Redirectscreenshot2.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Redirectscreenshot2.PNG. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Temporal isolation.jpg

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. However, it has been speedily deleted under criterion Image 3 because it was noted that this is a copyrighted image that was "used with permission". Wikipedia cannot accept unfree images in that circumstance. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. --Ginkgo100^talk 01:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 17:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Living With Ed

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Living With Ed, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Living With Ed. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

SORRY

i am so sorry. My little sister deleted your whole User Page when I went to get something to eat. I will undo it, and sorry for the inconvenience. This will never happern again. Emphasis on never —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.109.84 (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jaglogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jaglogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Folding@Home

Good call on the Folding at Home. I guess I didn't think of that. After writing that, I noticed a few mentions on the F@H forum about having to shut down servers. --ZachPruckowski 23:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC) (oops, forgot to sign the first time)

SirGrant

you are making extra work for me. i dont appreciate your deleting some of my headings while i am in the middle of updating them. You ought to be astute enough to determine that a user is in the process of actively updating files. joe 14:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My Response

I go around on wikipedia using the random article button on the left side. I came across an article that joe was updating and it had a set of blank sections and you can see my deletion of them here [3]. I did not find an article in use tag on the page so I removed some blank sections and did not check the history to check that the page was in renovations since I go around making formatting fixes as I find them. My oppinion can be found here on Joe's talk page [4]. Long story short I think it was a mix of both our faults since I was going around making quick formatting fixes I didn't check that the article was undergoing edits at the time so I just removed blank sections and that was my fault. I think it's not 100% all on me though because I do think a major edit was in progress tag should have been posted. But long story short I think it all just comes down to a misunderstanding. SirGrant 19:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

reply re blanking out

sorry for using your user page and not the talk page. thanx for the info on the various protocols you mentioned. also, it seems that if you are using a auto routine; the routine should check for time elapesed from one entry to the next entry. i can understand cleaning up a page with blank captions if it has sitting arouind for a week. but if a caption is less than an hour old, that makes a difference. but in any every, i feel obliged to follow the wiki rules and wish you continued success in your editing efforts. joe 02:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Spam blacklist

I don't know why you are adding to the list of spam sites that has been archived. It is highly unlikely anyone will ever read it. You can propose web sites for the spam blacklist here. Thatcher131 (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My Response

Thanks I'll make sure to use that list from now on SirGrant 04:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

SirGrant, your arrogance is unbecoming.

I am quite frankly insulted that you would be so condescending as to accuse me of making a joke edit. I can only surmise you did not bother to click the source cited. As a form of apology, I would like you to personally remove the talk message you placed on my page. 68.88.201.13 02:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My Response

This post is in response to this edit [5] and this warning [6]. The post he made was based on the source here[7]. Marcy clearly states "Wikipedia is susceptable to vandles for example frances entry is all wrong it should read..." clearly indicating that she is vandalising his entry. Furthermore this sort of edit is discussed on the PVP talk pages here [8] and [9] here. So my argument for the above edit was that Marcy was clearly either making a joke/vandalism edit and so was the above user as well as many other anonomous IP addresses that edited the page resulting in the need for page protection. SirGrant 03:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

How do you find this crap?

How the hell do you figure this out? hve you no sense of humor? ANyone looking up stewart would chuckle at the honors addition, NOBODY will ever come across that geo-stub article. GET OVER YOURSELF user:surfacing_731

My Response

This message was prompted by a vandalism revert linked here. --SirGrant 02:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You're invited :)

Please accept this invite to join the new WikiProject Bodybuilding, a WikiProject dedicated to improving bodybuilding related articles. Simply click here to accept! ~~~~

My Response

Thanks but no thanks got lots of other edits to work on plus I honestly don't know very much about bodybuilding. SirGrant 03:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot

I see you also hate OrphanBot, so you might want to look at this

Micoolio101 00:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Micoolio101

Image:Hydrofluoric acid.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Hydrofluoric acid.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Sherool (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Anthology of Interest I

Regarding your edit of June 9, "grammer, it's to its, you wouldn't say "It is the pasadena star trek convention all over again": er... yes you would. Was this a brain burp, or what? —Wereon 22:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:4400.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:4400.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My Response

Orphan bot you are whack, I cited where I got it and it has been updated and your tag removed thanks SirGrant 03:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing Kopa

Hi, thanks for fixing the page on Kopa. Some people keep messing the format and adding nonsense to pages related to The Lion King, like Kopa.

Bye --Starionwolf 18:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Michael Keith Smith

Thank you for your attion on the Michael Keith Smith. What we have with User:Edchilvers is constant vandalism. From what I can see he has introduced his friend Tracy Williams (see Google typing in Ed Chilvers) who is also at it. Smith recently won a libel case against her for internet libel. Dangerous people. Sussexman 08:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My recent edits

Hey there, I believe you were a bit mistaken in commenting on my talk page in regards to my Yo Momma edit. I simimply reverted some vandalism. I'm assuming we were both vandal fighting and you or your program got confused. I invite you to either delete, strike, or correct your comments left on my talk page. In any case, no hard feelings, it was obviously a mistake; one I've made in the past. Cheers! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 05:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My Response

Yeah we did make a simple mistake I ended up clicking revert just a few second after you did. Good luck fighting vandles. SirGrant 03:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, SirGrant! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 02:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application

Dear SirGrant,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.2 version release it has even more power. As such we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that for security reasons, VandalProof's creator requires it's users to have made 250 edits to articles, which you have not. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again in the not too distant future. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 07:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application

Dear SirGrant,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.1 version release it has even more power. As such we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that for security reasons, VandalProof's creator requires it's users to have made 250 edits to articles, which you have not. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again in the not too distant future. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof.

Prodego ^talk 18:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The spam! It consumes us all!!!

(21:36:30) <BorgHunter> Is there a Meta admin around and paying attention?
(21:38:01) <BorgHunter> I need someone to edit the external link blacklist.
(21:38:32) <BorgHunter> Per the very bottom of [[WP:ANI]]
(21:39:33) <BorgHunter> The domain is dumbbaby.net
(21:48:00) <silsor> BorgHunter: I'll fix it
(21:51:30) <silsor> BorgHunter: added, might take a while for it to take effect though

Thanks for notifying us. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi- Here at Wikipedia it is convention to fill in the edit summary box when making a change to an article. This can be very brief; often a word or two will suffice. However, when reverting someone else's edits, it is even more important to give your rationale. Recently, in stuffed animal, I changed the captions on the pictures, and noted my reason in the summary box. Today you changed them back, no reason given. We will be more likely to create good encyclopedia articles if we work together, using Wikipedia's conventions. ike9898 June 29, 2005 13:46 (UTC)

   Okay, no problem. The summary box is just above the 'save page' button. When you are reading an article, try clicking on the 'history' tab, near the top. On the history page, you see the history of the edits done to that particular article. This is one of the places comments from the 'summary box' appear. Another place you will see these comments is on your 'my watchlist' page. Happy editing and I'll see you around the wiki. ike9898 June 30, 2005 12:53 (UTC)