User talk:Mstroeck

Please do not split up discussions. If you leave a message here, I will answer here as well, and nowhere else. Replying on your talk-page would make following the discussion annoying to most readers, so I will refrain from doing so. The reverse, of course, also applies: If I left a message over at your place, that's where I would prefer you to reply. Thank you!

Some older and/or uninteresting discussions are archived here: Archive 1

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You helped choose {{subst:IDRIVEtopic article}} as this week's WP:ACID 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.

Great image

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

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)[reply]

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

Mr. Mstroeck: I am a graduate assistant working in the University of Louisiana at Lafayette in the United States. The professor I work for is planning to use your nanotube image in his forthcoming book. Thus, we need your copyright permission before using it. Please contact me regarding copyright issue. (ullafayette@gmail.com) Thank you very much.

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)[reply]

*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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi Walter; May I have the source that you used for creating your image? Please! It's urgent! I need to have an header for my website until 3 days! Let me know please! 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Answered on user's talk page.

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs: Lujo Tončić-Sorinj; Christian Doppler; Isar; Karl Gruber; Philipp Frank; Gizzard; Rudolf Ramek; Percussion (medicine); Scala tympani; Hubert Gorbach; State Road 369 (Florida); Justification (theology); Austrofascism; Rib; Napoleon complex; Nathan Birnbaum; Polysynthetic language; Fata Morgana (Nico's Last Concert); Axel Corti

Cleanup: State Road 374 (Florida); State Road 377 (Florida); Cave diving
Merge: Nares; Parabronchi; Common Intermediate Language
Add Sources: Robert McDuffie; Alex Rodriguez; Big Bird in China
Wikify: Nation-building; Electional astrology; Nazzareno Carusi
Expand: Foreign worker; Austrian Empire; Maastricht Treaty

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I realise it was a while ago, but, hell, I just read your comments, and I am right with you. I have a lot of respect for people who will just say the obvious truth and stop worrying about offending certain people with 'alternative' beliefs. I am reading through the debate now trying to work out whether to re-nominate- I'm certain it should have passed. J Milburn 23:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Any luck with that? Your inflation-adjusted peak seems higher than what I see elsewhere. I can't find inflation-adjusted price data on the EIA's pages; did you deflate the nominal prices yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maverick XIII (talk • contribs) 08:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering if, noting the recent upsurges in oil prices, you would sometime update the picture to 2008's values? That would be cool. Thanks. GeiwTeol 07:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"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[reply]

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)[reply]

POTY 2006

The arrangements for the Commons:Picture of the Year 2006 competition are now complete, and voting will start tomorrow, Feb 1st. All the featured pictures promoted last year are automatically nominated. As the creator of one or more images nominated for the election we invite you to participate in the event. Alvesgaspar 12:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Lake Peigneur Waterfall.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lake Peigneur Waterfall.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 88.134.44.28 17:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permission request

Hello. I really like your DNA Overview image, and I'd like to use it in the introduction part of my PhD thesis. I'll of course use the GFDL for that text, as it uses the DNA Overview and one more GFDL-licensed image, but I would like to avoid spending several pages (times 180 printed copies) on the license text. So I kindly ask if may use your image in my thesis without including the license text, while still adhering to the GFDL spririt, providing a link to the license, and crediting you. Carl T 12:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, go ahead. I kindly ask you to credit both me and Wikipedia, though, if space permits! mstroeck

I certainly will. Thank you very much. :-) Carl T

DNA Image

I think that the image you put up on the DNA page is actually better than the one that I had, since mine probably came off as being a little too artistic. I was wondering though if you (or I - either way) could re-label your image with Angstrom units of measurements instead of Nanometers since there has been some discussion on unit labeling.

I work for Zygote Media Group and we have been making a concerted effort to support education through our imagery rendered from our 3d models as long as it doesn't get in the way of doing what makes us money. Let me know on my talk page if you ever need an image for an article and I'll dig through our archives to see if we have anything that would fit.

3d science 18:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon Nanotube Image

AATCC Review, a textile industry magazine and journal, would like to request permission to include your nanotube image in our nanotechnology issue. It is surprisingly difficut to find a simple schematic of a nanotube despite the media buzz around nano-everything! Of course, you will be credited for the image. Wymand 13:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, go right ahead. Please note that all artwork that is released under the GFDL can always be used if attribution is taken care of. mstroeck 14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silkscreen (typeface)

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Silkscreen (typeface), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Psychonaut 20:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DNA Image - Permision to use images for educational tv program

Hello I’m Diana Acevedo, Copyright Specialist of Ana G Mendez’s Center of Telecommunications and Distance Education. My job is getting permission for the usage of copyrighted audiovisual elements to be used in our educational TV courses. My producers are interested in some pictures that you have on Wikipedia.org. I noticed that those pictures are under the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows the free usage of those documents under some conditions. This license only covers usage on pictures on books and any other printed media but it doesn’t cover the usage on television. We are asking for your permission to use the image of DNA.

Feel free to contact me if you have any doubts. Thanks for your help.

Diana Acevedo d_acevedo@suagm.edu

Permission granted via email. mstroeck 13:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

permission request

hi, I wanted to use the allotropes of carbon, the carbon nanotube, and the buckyball images tht u have created for my article which i wanna publish in a journal. I have really actually not understood the GFDL guidelines so will it be fine if i convert the images into jpeg format as well as cut/modify them as suitable and use them in my article. i will credit both u and wikipedia for the images i have taken. I require ure permission for the above and please let me know if im supposed to carry out any other requirements in accordance with the GFDL guidelines. Thank u. Please feel free to contact me on shyam_garg@hotmail.com

Yes, what you mentioned is perfectly OK. Please credit me and Wikipedia and maybe send me a link or a PDF when you're done :-) mstroeck 22:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Class t-shirt

Hello, I am designing a t-shirt for my 1st year Nanotechnology Engineering class at UWaterloo. I have used/modified your buckyball image for the design. I'm wondering how I can properly credit you. We have a widely visited student forum for NE, is it ok if I credit you there and link to Wikipedia? Also we will be collecting money for the t-shirts, but I don't think we directly profit from it (its for the printing fees). We may end up getting paid for class party if the design outmatches the other engineering programs' :P Nvigil 23:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Oil Price Graph

I like the historic oil price graph you uploaded. I would like to develop a similar graph for real and inflation adjusted $/kW costs of photovoltaics. I don't know how you produced this graph but I imagine you inserted data into a table and then generated a graph from this data. Could you inform me how you produced the graph and send me the inflation data you used. It's going to take some time but I'm willing to collect and plug in all the PV data I can find. This would be a real asset to explain the history of PV development. I hope you can help or point me in the right direction. Mrshaba 06:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Oil Price Graph

Hi: it would be highly useful to see an updated graph, taking into account the latest increases. The graph as it stands doesn't reflect is historically high price, a rather critical feature. 132.239.215.69 (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

c60 -permission to use and request for additional information

hello. amazingly helpful work. i am building a large scale version. would like to discuss specifics with you. newbie wiki user. cloudbaby_@hotmail.com tnx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B.coolik (talk • contribs) 21:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sucrose 3D image

Your ball & stick model is nice-looking, but is drawn in a different orientation than the companion stick-figure diagram. This difference is confusing to some readers. Do you still have the 3D structure file, and could rotate it to be the same orientation? DMacks (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LeopoldGratz.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:LeopoldGratz.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. 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 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 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 non-free media 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. Rettetast (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Color coding of molecular images

Hi,

I'm really impressed with the ball and stick molecular images you've created. But I'm not a chemist and I find the color coding unclear. It's pretty obvious that black spheres represent Carbon atoms and gray Hydrogen but it's less clear on the meaning of the blue and red spheres, which after a little digging I found represent Nitrogen and Oxygen. Since you know what images you uploaded, could you revise their descriptions to incorporate this information.

Thanks much --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

permission to use?

Hi Mstroeck,

I edit the website for the Office of Biotechnology at Iowa State University, US. Could we please have permission to use your wonderful DNA illustration as a background image under the menu on our website? It would be perfect and we would be very thankful.

Camstock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camstock (talk • contribs) 17:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead! I would really appreciate if you could mention me and Wikipedia at some point on your website, though. mstroeck (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

permission to use in a book?

Mr. Mstroeck, I am writing to request your legal permission to use your nanotube illustration in my forthcoming book tentatively titled COMMUNICATION SHOCK: THE ACCELERATION AND INTEGRATION OF EVERYTHING by TYRONE L. ADAMS (hardbound, 325 pages approximate), to be published by the University of San Martin de Porres Press, an imprint of the University of San Martin de Porres in July 2008. World Spanish/English language rights are needed for all printings of this edition, including updated printings. 10,000 copies will be printed over the life of this edition. [For e-rights: In addition, we plan to post the material in an encrypted format on a secure, password-protected website (or on a CD, etc.). We are thus also specifically requesting from you additional electronic rights for such use.] Please contact me and let me know where to send the legal copyright permission form. (ullafayette@gmail.com) Any assistance from your side will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much.

Sure, go ahead! (also answered via email) mstroeck (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AloysWachBergpredigt.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AloysWachBergpredigt.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image wanted

Hi. I noticed you commented on this engine image. You may like to comment on the planned new image here Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Silkscreen font.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Silkscreen font.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. —Bkell (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: Image:Surimi.jpg

Image:Surimi.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:393px-Surimi.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:393px-Surimi.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:OlgaWisinger-FlorianLandschaft.jpg is now available as Commons:File:OlgaWisinger-FlorianLandschaft.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:LilaLeeds.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:LilaLeeds.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, 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, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

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 Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem, Wiegand effect

On June 4, 2009, the article Wiegand effect was blanked for copyright investigation due to the duplication of text from this source. That text seems to have entered Wikipedia here and here. The source in question indicates an initial publication of May 1998 and asserts copyright protection.

Although you have been on Wikipedia for many years and this text was placed many years ago, I do not know the degree to which you may be familiar with Wikipedia's copyright policy. We regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material unless it is verified that these are free for use. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the text does not constitute a copyright violation, because you can verify that it is free, you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.2 or later or you are the copyright holder and are in position to grant that release yourself, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Wiegand effect and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Wiegand effect with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Wiegand effect.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Wiegand effect saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

If I can clarify any of these processes, please let me know. I will be watching your talk page for a few days and should see any note you leave here. You are also welcome to leave messages at my talk page. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moonriddengirl. Frankly, that was so long ago that I don't even remember what my source was - if there's a copyright problem, just delete it. mstroeck (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egypt rope Image

Hello! Do you have a reference/source for the Ancient Egypt rope manufacture Image? I want to include it in my PhD dissertation (I'm studying procedural instructions) as an early example of a user manual. I'm not sure my committee will accept Wikipedia as a source.

Thanks!

Steve --Shendoo (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Types_of_Carbon_Nanotubes.png is a candidate for being delisted from being a featured picture.

I have nominated image you created: File:Types_of_Carbon_Nanotubes.png, to be delisted from the list of featured pictures. Please feel free to participate in the discussion there. J kasd 07:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Mstroeck! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 91 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

Ed Seykota - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Erwin Lanc - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of one of your images in a PBS documentary series

Hello,

I am the associate producer for the Emmy-nominated PBS web series The Secret Life of Scientists and Engineers. Each week we profile a different scientist and their secret life. We found a perfect image from your Wikimedia Commons website that would be ideal for our profile of a Stem Cell Researcher/Oncologist.

It is titled DNA Overview and can be found here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DNA_Overview.png

I saw that you have licensed this photo for public use, but that you have added a "Share Alike" clause to the photo. I would really love to use this photo, but I would need exemption from the Share Alike clause (as the educational foundation funding the project cannot legally use Share Alike images).

It is an educational, non-profit project, intended to interest viewers in science. We would really love to use this photo. If you email me back, at list.tobey@gmail.com, then I can send you our materials release. The release does not assume the copyright from you, but would simply say that you are giving us permission to use the photo.

Thank you so much!

Tobey List —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeftelProd (talk • contribs) 22:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Bingham

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Molly Bingham, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.meetmollybingham.com/meet-molly-bingham/index.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the template from a page that you created. It is still a copyright violation. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 11:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - sorry for that. I was under the impression that that template is no longer necessary due to the "OTRS pending" template in the discussion section. mstroeck (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Image Deletion

A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Deco on the fly for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deco on the fly is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deco on the fly until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. RexxS (talk) 18:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All files in category Unclassified Chemical Structures listed for deletion

One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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/them not being deleted. Thank you.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of MGA73 (talk) at 18:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:ValerieSolanasSCUMCover.gif

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for translation

In connection with our article on the May 25 Houla massacre, what in my estimation appears to be an important new source has emerged in the June 23 article "In Syrien gibt es mehr als nur eine Wahrheit" in the Berliner Morgenpost. Given that in the past there has been much controversy over introducing sources which contradict the main narrative of the massacre, i.e. that it was perpetrated by the Syrian government, or groups loyal to it, I believe a high-quality translation of this article is necessary to facilitate a fully informed discussion about its use.

Based on past experience I have requested a translation from you as well as four other translators listed at Wikipedia:Translators available#German-to-English. Therefore, should you decide to take on this task, I would ask that you either give notice to the other four that you are doing the assignment, or to me and I will let the four other know. (I suppose, as a matter of quality assurance, two translations could be presented for comparison, but I don't see that as required at present, but if a second translator would like to duplicate, all the better.) I'm listing the other four below:

Your user sandbox could be used as target for the translation (i.e. a permanent link to it would ensure its availability in case it becomes overwritten). __meco (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcika has provided a partial translation as presented at Talk:Houla massacre#German articles. This is significant and will be very helpful in the assessment of the Berliner Morgenpost article as a source for our article. However, a full translation would be preferrable, so I will let the request stand in case any of the translators (including Marcika) will see it possible to produce this. __meco (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Allotropes of Carbon.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cicisbeo

Thoroughly enjoyed reading the Cicisbeo article! I even read the talk page, which eventually led to my being curious about those that contributed to the article. I did miss seeing it when featured as a DYK, but I thank you for such an interesting topic. Now I just need to find a Cicisbeo for myself! :D Ciao User:SeaBeeDee^(talk) 08:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC) SeaBeeDee User:SeaBeeDee^(talk) 08:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking permission to use your image "Eight Allotropes of Carbon.png"

Dear Michael,

I'm writing to seek your permission to use your image "Eight Allotropes of Carbon" in a book to be published by Robert M. Hazen: Symphony in C: Carbon and the Evolution of (Almost) Everything. The book is written for a public audience to help them understand the important role carbon plays in our lives.

I just wanted to get confirmation that you'd be willing to provide it under the guidelines of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license.

Cheers! --Mice of Mu (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Mstroeck.jpg

The file File:Mstroeck.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Dubious licensing

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. B (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Allotropes of Carbon.png nominated for replacement as FP

File:Allotropes of Carbon.png, a FP you created, has been nominated for replacement with a SVG version. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Allotropes of carbon. MER-C 18:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with File:OlgaWisinger-Florian001.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:OlgaWisinger-Florian001.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --TheImaCow (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with File:OlgaWisingerFlorian002.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:OlgaWisingerFlorian002.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --TheImaCow (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]