User talk:Marco Krohn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Kein Probleme! Tschuess, Nevilley 22:19 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry that was so short - I meant to say, thanks for the email. I am glad you didn't mind my helping with Hanover - I hoped it did not look like I was interfering too much. I guessed that you were German from the "would/should" thing :) ... I can never get my head around that in German! Are you from round there? Do you know Bad Muender am Deister by any chance?? Nevilley 09:11 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Nevilley, no I am glad for any help, especially in the beginning :-) Also, since I am non-native speaker, I feel much better when someone looks at the stuff I am writing and corrects my mistakes. This also helps me improving my English--thanks. And yes, your guess about me being from Germany is right, though I wasn't the one who did the "would/should" thing (at least I don't think so). I live in Hanover which is quite close to the Deister. I also know "Bad Münder", but am not sure if I've ever been there since my memory for places and locations is very weak... probably I've been there at least once. mkrohn 21:56 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

I had assumed that, given that it's a German city, "Hannover" would be the default spelling of "Hanover". But, since the one-'n' spelling is where the Wiki page is at, that's certainly the way to go. Just wondering then, who does spell it "Hanover"? (besides English speakers, of course, or are we the only ones?) -- JohnOwens 22:26 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

Being from Hanover I was pretty confused to see it with one 'n'. I don't know the exact reasons, but I rechecked it in four different dictionaries (see talk:Hanover, and probably the following text sums it up very nice:
"Similar issues arise with spelling. The German city Hanover has this spelling in English, and Germans who know English use it when writing English. It is important in English history, because it is where the present English royal family comes from. However, the German spelling is Hannover. Many Americans learn the word from German contacts and therefore use the German spelling. There is no unique correct answer." (from usenet, alt.california)
But please don't ask me, why the English decided to call it "Hanover" ;-) -- mkrohn 22:38 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)
Why did the English call it "Hanover"? ;-) -- JohnOwens 22:44 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Marco. I was just being sarcastic because of all the complaints about how "Americacentric" Wikipedia is. Sorry to take it out on you.  :) -- Zoe

No problem, being new I was just a bit confused :-)

Hi Marco, thanks for the river Weser map. Would you mind correcting "Bremenhaven" to "Bremerhaven" and "Hamelin" to "Hameln" - provided that these are considered correct here, that is ;) - Thank you. Kosebamse 18:56 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. "Bremenhaven" is surely the wrong spelling, but "Hamelin" should be o.k., at least if we talk about the English version. See here: Hamelin. Or do you want that for the German version? (in this case also Hanover needs to be corrected). -- mkrohn 19:26 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)


Ah well, better leave the English forms in the English Wikipedia. Otherwise you will ignite endless disputes about forms of place names. Who would have thought that Hameln has an English name, by the way? Happy editing and thanks for your contributions, Kosebamse 19:48 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)
Well, there is that rather famous poem of Browning's, "the Pied Piper of Hamelin", based on the old folk tale - although Browning was known to lift and adapt words himself (with one rather notorious and unfortunate neologism for "nun's headgear"!). But if you want to see an early discussion of how the English language works with names from other cultures, read the early parts of Defoe's "Robinson Crusoe" in which he explains how a German name "Kreuzer" (or was it "Kreutzer"?) became "Crusoe". PML.

Hi Marco, Just a note to say I have reembedded the Mugabe picture again. I think Mav, whom I have a hell of a lot of respect for, is fundamentally wrong on the picture issue. His method of placing pictures produces images that take up full columns even when they don't need to, which has the effect of editorialising by making the picture seem so important it has to be seen. Normal graphic design embeds images in text because (a) it is the standard look used by all encylopædias, books, magazines, etc (I have laid out a few advertorials for political candidates and images are always embedded. If they aren't they look decided amateurish, as if the graphic artist didn't know how to do a fundamental requirement in image use) (b) if they are not embedded the image can dominate a page, making it seem exceptionally important, whereas in reality images are used for illustration not editorialisation; (c) if a text box size isn't specified, they can affect text wraps and 'shift', particularly when viewed with certain browsers. The results can all too often be an embarrassing mess, not a professionally laid out page.

I've added in images on quite a few pages on wiki. I have always found that the page doesn't work unless it is well laid out, with strict limits set on the image, its location, its relationship to text. For example, I put images on Michael Collins (Irish leader) and an enormous number of images on Papal Tiara. I think on a visual level, the effect is to create a well laid out page that Encyclopædia Brittanica or any major publication could use in its current form. I don't think Mav's method works, gives a page locked in stability or creates a professionally laid out page. Hence my reversion of your change. I think the picture works far better and is browser friendly 'locked in' to the text rather than in freeflow, and it ensures the image, where its size does not warrant one full column, isn't overly dominant, producing editorialisation rather than illustration. Take care. STÓD/ÉÍRE 20:37 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)

Hi. I checked again, and think that Mav is not the one to blame here, he has really not changed anything concerning to the embedding. I have changed "border:.1px" to "border:1px" because my browser (konqueror) does not show a border in the subpixel range (no embedding) and I thought you entered the ".1" by mistake. Also setting the width to 270px is wrong, because the image size really is 300px and this gives a strange layout to the page. Someone already has corrected the image size, if it is not rendered perfectly on your browser, then I am afraid you have to blame your browser for that. About the right size for the border: "1px" is fine for me (this is how you did it for Michael Collins (Irish leader)). This page renders fine here (konqueror cvs). The pope images are all without frame, probably because you set the border to ".1px". I now tried a different setting, namely "1pt" for the Robert Mugabe site. It renders fine here and I would like to hear if you also see the box. BTW what is wrong if we set this to 1px? Is the line to thick? Best regards, Marco. mkrohn 22:07 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Marco, I used to use 1px but I found if it reduced it to .1px because I found that visually it looked better for many images not to have a visual border, particularly where the the image itself is clearly bordered. Mozilla seems to see a line anyway. Explorer seemed to look better in many instances with the line there but so thin it was invisible to the naked eye. Sometimes things look one way on one browser and different on another (notably mozilla). What I usually do is go into a page I have laid out in a number of browsers to make sure it is OK. I had not yet had the chance to go into Mugabe in mozilla to see if the width needed changing. If 270 looked wrong, I would have changed it, done a show preview and kept changing until the box matched the image. The thing about using width is that where I don't use it, I just can't get an image to go to a specific spot on a page. Even relatively small images become centralised and end up making the page look odd. I put a full explanation on the talk:Mugabe page for Brion, so you might find a more detailed explanation there. Best of luck, STÓD/ÉÍRE 23:12 Mar 30, 2003 (UTC)



Sorry, I just saw your message. At this point I think that image is fundamentally flawed and should be replaced with one that only shows Mugabe (at a width of between 200-300 px). Cropping off Annon would be very bad because then we are left with Mugabe in front on the UN flag! :-) We could still have this image further down though (in which case the somewhat hard to see face detail isn't as much of a problem since a better image of Mugabe's face would already have been shown further up on the page). For now, I'll try to do a better conversion. --mav

Thanks for your solution mav, it is much better now! -- mkrohn 12:07 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks mate for the recommendation for safari. It is excellent and best of all, NO MORE COURIER FONT!!! If it is compatible with your system try it out, it has a lovely clean feel to it that makes Netscape look like something from the dinosaur age. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:15 Apr 2, 2003 (UTC)


I removed the Qt toolkit discussion from votes for deletion. The policy is to leave the discussion on the page if there's a dispute or countering arguments, but that wasn't the case for this page. -- Notheruser 04:20 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)


I've just seen your changes to my style of pic insertion on SR-71 Blackbird and B-52 Stratofortress. This was a surprise since I've had plenty of compliments on my work with illustrations. I did not expect someone to change my style without being kind enough to discuss it with me. I know, of course, that Wikipedia is open but there are certain courtesies we should still keep to.

Of course, if your style is official Wikipedia (and I don’t know of any official policy) then I must give way and let you change all 103 pics I have put in Wikipedia!

I don’t dislike your style, but, as I have spent long hours slowly developing and improving my HTML to have the look of my pics just how I want them to look, I wonder why I need to be altered? I wonder how many problems your picture framing could cause with different browsers (I use IE5) whereas I have never had any problems raised by anybody with my non-framed pictures. Looking forward to your comments -- Adrian Pingstone 15:13 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

First of all my apologies for not discussing this with you. I am quite new to wikipedia and therefore make some mistakes, thanks for pointing out and kindly informing me about this. Also please note that I am non-native speaker, I therefore hope to not sound too impolite. Below is a list of changes and some comments:
  • Replaced the image code you used with the code as described on Wikipedia:Boilerplate_text. I honestly don't know the exact difference, but the code is at least easier to understand and somehow official.
  • Removed new lines before the first paragraph -- otherwise image and first paragraph are not on the same level.
  • Sidenote: you used italic for the subtitle, I do this as well, but there is (unfortunately) no policy for this.
  • Added "small" for the subtitles, this seems to be standard, but there is also no policy for that.
  • Replaced HTML code by Wikicode (according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style)
  • The headlines should start with "==" not with "===", I changed that also in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style, "Headline style".
  • "General Characteristics" -> "General characteristics", see above
  • Added a border to the images. This was wrong I'll remove them now. Unfortunately there is (again) no policy for that, I took the idea from Michael Collins (Irish leader).
I hope you accept my apologies concerning the border and not asking you before. Are other changes o.k. for you? -- mkrohn 20:04 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)
Hi! Marco, from Adrian. Thank you for your kind (and well expressed) reply to my concerns over your changes to my pictures.
I live in Bristol, England but I have been to Germany to go to meetings at the Deutsche Airbus (as it was then) plants in Bremen and Hamburg for meetings, when I was working for British Aerospace. I love Bremen, especially Becks beer!
  • I would be happy if you could leave my code unchanged, on my other pictures. I understand it, it works well and I've had no complaints (yet!)
  • I very much like your small italics so I will slowly change all my other pics to that.
  • I had nothing to do with the text of those two articles so do as you wish there.
  • I am pleased you have removed the frame, I think it makes the page look a little "heavy".
Thanks for your help, I learn a little more each day! -- Adrian Pingstone 21:11 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)
Marco, see my comments on Talk:Duesberg hypothesis Revolver

Hey there - it looks like you thought I was trying to delete the Main Page - no wonder you thought I was looney - please take another look!The Fellowship of the Troll 02:08, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Germans[edit]

I've for long (a year, actually) been itched by the way Wikipedia-links are done with often sloppy distinctions between nationality, citizenship and ethnicity (with regard to persons) and also between nations and countries. This is particularly obvious in the case of people or entities that are denoted as German. A link to the Federal Republic of Germany is often outright unhistorical and wrong, but this has until now been the most usual.

That's why I'm considering an article on Germans, which I've started at the temporary location User:Ruhrjung/Germans. I would wish to avoid too much of edit wars after having started to link to the article. In particular, I would not wish to see the current disputes over German-Polish matters automatically extend also to this article, why I kindly ask you for comments now, in advance, in order to try to find wordings acceptable to as many as possible of concerned wikipedians.

I look forward to your comments at User talk:Ruhrjung/Germans.
--Ruhrjung 23:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

KDE- 3.1 screenshot![edit]

Hi!

I see an interesting toolbar at your KD 3.1 screenshot, after the bolt-driver icon. Is that the XMLUI toolbar? You can answer for me here! I edit the Hungary Wikipedia. THanks David!

Re: KDE Screenshot![edit]

Thanks for your answer! (You remember: toolbar..)! I can do it! :-) Thaks for all and good health to work Wiki! :-) Peda ([1] the link)

Image of the Staatsoper Hannover[edit]

It's User:Viajero's image, probably his own shot. I've merely been working through orphan images from the beginning to date, setting them into contexts in entries, and this fine shot was one of them. Wetman 10:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales[edit]

How the article about Jimmy Wales started its life is not encyclopaedic. It is only interesting to Wikipedians. — David Remahl 11:57, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I moved it to the talk page. — David Remahl 12:02, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I found the start of the article funny, but you are probably right about non-encyclopaedic. Thanks. -- mkrohn 14:32, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Global warming[edit]

When an article is protected, any possible version is the version. When the parties are able to reach a compromise, you can revert the "wrong version." 172 22:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Almost each time we have a multi-sided edit war, a "new user" is making reverts. Only the handful of developers have the ability to detect the IPs of logged-in users, but they tend to step in only when reverts by an alleged sockpuppet become chronic... They are responsible for all the servers, which keep on crashing, so they're frankly too busy to pay attention to the countless edit wars that go on each day. 172 04:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's interesting:-). Anyway just a note that I filed a 3RR on SN and noted the socks [2]. In case you're interested. -Vsmith 15:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just read your comments on the Arbcom case re: JG. Very good work. The problem of expert burnout against a constant onslaught of often well-meaning but rather naive skeptics is a serious one for wiki, and you stated the case well. The above comments by 172 point out another serious problem, the sockpuppet game - it needs to be squelched. I understand about the time problem - so many things to do and so little time :-)
Thanks, -Vsmith 02:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image copyright[edit]

IANAL, but Image:Spammed-mail-folder.png is (technically) a derivative work of a GPL work. Thus, it needs to follow the same license as the original work, and be GPL. Also, the emails show *do* have copyright value, but the use is, in my opinion, de minimis. →Raul654 20:41, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

You are probably right, I changed the image description though I am 100% sure that the KDE project would allow distribution by GFDL license. About the copyright of the email subjects: "works must meet minimal standards of originality in order to qualify for a copyright" and I don't think that these subject lines are sufficient ;-) -- mkrohn 20:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Global Warming (theory)[edit]

Saying that there are two terms, "global warming" and "global warming theory", is like saying that there are two terms, "special relativity" which describes the actual relativity, and "special relativity theory" which describes the theory. In actuality, special relativity is a theory, and global warming is a theory. There was no concept of "global warming" before the theory was developed, just as there was no concept like plate tectonics before that theory was developed. Cortonin | Talk 00:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In fact, I can think of only one other scientific theory for which its supporters object to putting the word "theory" in its definition, and that's evolution. This is based on political reasons, not scientific ones. Evolution avoids the word "theory" because creationists have been going around lately making unscientific arguments like, "Oh, it's just a theory," as if the word "theory" somehow demeans it. But that's how science works. These things are theories. It's only the theories which view themselves as subject to attack which go around removing the word theory from their definition, but this is merely the politics of persuasion. Cortonin | Talk 00:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So if you want the scientific definition of global warming, that's as a theory. If you want the political definition which presumes global warming is a proven fact and tries to convince others of that, then it's an increase. When I do the google search [3], you're right, the majority of the definition hits google locates say "an increase", but if you look more closely, almost every single one which says an increase includes "due to an increase in greenhouse gases" as part of the definition. In other words, the hits returned are doing exactly what you said they're not when you said, "Note that the definition of this term does not include anything about the reasons for the effect." In fact, essentially every hit which defines global warming as an increase, presumes it is true in the defintion and presumes an explanation for it as well. This is either a presumption of truth, or it is a theory. I for one hope it's a theory, because otherwise we have to add Category:Religions to the bottom of the page. Cortonin | Talk 00:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I referenced your sockpuppet note[edit]

FYI, I mentioned your sockpuppet note on the User talk:172 page, in my evidence for [4] --Silverback 10:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute[edit]

Why did you revert out the NPOV tag here? That is inappropriate to do. Cortonin | Talk 00:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello and stuff[edit]

(William M. Connolley 15:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Hi. Thanks for the message about our "policitcal impact". Lets hope he's reading the right version... which brings me to: thanks also for your help over the Great Edit Wars. I'm at EGU this week [5] but the wireless still seems to be working...


Three revert rule[edit]

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 20:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Greenhouse Effect[edit]

I mean this in the politest sense possible, but what part of "Explain your reverts" and "Maybe try to think of reasons for your rv" did you not understand? Cortonin | Talk 01:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*knock knock* Anybody home? Not only do you neglect to explain your reverts there, but you neglect to respond when I say that you neglect to explain your reverts, and then you just keep on reverting, inexplicably. Wikipedia does not and can not work that way. On scientific consensus, you speak on the talk page, and progress was made. On greenhouse effect, you avoid the talk page, and thus no progress is made. Simply reverting out data and reverting in a largely rejected paper from 1909 without any explanation will not result in progress, no matter how many times you do it. Cortonin | Talk 12:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
O.k. I will study the part about greenhouses more carefully and stop reverting until I have a clearer picture of the physical aspects of this part. -- mkrohn 12:52, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Cortonin | Talk 12:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IPCC[edit]

Regarding endorsing people, the following bolded sections are in dispute:

The IPCC is monolithic and complacent, and it is conceivable that they are exaggerating the speed of change." (John Maddox, a former highly-respected editor of the journal Nature, quoted by David Adam in The Guardian, 28 January 2005)
The fact that the IPCC reports are widely cited [6] [7] as supporting material is ample evidence of the respect they have earned within the climate science community [8] [9]. The reports have been highly influential in forming national and international responses to climate change; they are the baseline for the debate.
In general the expertise of Stott is dubious: "Stott does not appear to have had a single paper published in a scientific journal in the fields in which he most frequently applies this 'expertise', e.g. climate change or tropical ecology." [10] (A quote such as this also requires attributing to the source, so it must say something like, "Lobbywatch has stated.")

If you just go through and erase those bolded statements, the quality of the article goes up a hundred-fold. With them in, those paragraphs sound like a juvenile essay written by someone trying to persuade. With them removed, it sounds like an encyclopedia entry. And if you'll note, the first "highly-respected" one is even a critic of the IPCC. This isn't about pushing a perspective, it's about writing in the NPOV style.

Regarding the violation of Wikipedia's "avoid self-references" policy:

A few scientists have objected and made public comments to that effect, in fact so few that no-one can find any suitable quote to add in here

And regarding a simply invalid portion, a comment about Europe is disputed using global and northern hemisphere data, which is just wrong (as pointed out a half dozen times on talk):

With regard to the temperature cuve Stott remarks that "in 1200AD Europe was 2 degrees centigrade [Celsius] warmer that it is today", a statement which is not supported by any version of the temperature record of the past 1000 years.

And why do you keep removing it from the [[Category:United Nations specialized agencies]]? No explanation has ever been given for this, but it keeps getting reverted out over and over again. Cortonin | Talk 13:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the details, I hope I can have a look at them soon (I'm in the process to finish my PhD thus my time is very limited). I tend to agree that the huge reverts (consisting of many different things) are a problem in order to reach a more stable article. Nevertheless, I do not think that only one "side" is guilty. Perhaps next time you split up your edits and first add the category link and then do the final revert (if you think you have to)? In this sense I think we all can improve our edit style :-) -- mkrohn 13:29, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I noticed you added back the phrase, With regard to the temperature curve, Stott claims that "in 1200 AD, Europe was 2 degrees centigrade [Celsius] warmer that it is today", a statement which is not supported by any version of the temperature record of the past 1000 years. As I mentioned above, this is attempting to dispute a comment about Europe using global and northern hemisphere data, which does not make sense. It is debated whether the Medieval Warm Period was a regional or global phenomenon, but that's not relevant to the Stott claim, since he's only mentioning the European temperature rise, which is fairly well accepted. Stott is not trying to imply that the world was hotter (he only says "Europe"), but is instead trying to imply that such a rise would not necessarilly be destructive, but might even be productive (as historical records show it was for Europe). (He goes into more detail on that view in one of his other papers.) So it makes absolutely no sense to follow his comment with a dispute that doesn't cover it. Cortonin | Talk 05:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Information about the Medieval Warm Period belongs in that article, not in IPCC unless MWP is an IPCC issue. (SEWilco 19:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC))
In the article Temperature record of the past 1000 years we do mention the Medieval Warm Period. On the other hand there is AFAIK no mention of it in the article about the IPCC. Mmh, what do you mean exactly? -- mkrohn 20:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
The quotation was only there in the IPCC article so that it could be disputed to try to make Stott look foolish. Now that I pointed out that the dispute was invalid, and it no longer makes Stott look foolish, no one is arguing to put it in any more because it doesn't serve the purpose of discrediting Stott anymore. *sigh* I really wish people could get over the whole character assassination kick, it's quite disreputable to make an encyclopedia read like that. Cortonin | Talk 01:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

uwe kils[edit]

hallo Marco! can you vote on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Uwe_Kils we would like to have that for our Virtual University project - good luck - keep up with your fine work Uwe Kils 23:27, May 29, 2005 (UTC)


Antarctic krill[edit]

hallo Marco! can you please take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Antarctic_krill maybe help with some editing / formatting / vote - best greetings - bist Du aus Deutschland? Uwe Kils 10:28, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

hallo Marco - congratulations to your phd - what is it about? -thanks for the answer and offer - where are you located? best regards Uwe Kils Klönschnack 00:32, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Theoretical Physics - for all details see [11] ;-) And yes, I'm from Germany. At the moment I live in Hannover, but at the end of this month I will move to Munich. -- mkrohn 00:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) P.S. currently printing Antarctic krill so I have something to do tomorrow when enjoying the sun :-) It's a pity, that the article is not yet a featured article (just found the discussion).
Ich auch - wenn Du fertig bist kannst ihn ja vorschlagen fuer feature, ich mach es nicht nochmal - oder wir uebersetzen ihn ins Deutsche oder Daenische und featurn ihn da - schlaf gut Uwe Kils Klönschnack 03:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
tolle Arbeit, herzlichen Glueckwunsch - zu hoch fuer mich - hoffentlich bringt sie Dir einen prima Job - ich mag das Diderot Zitat Uwe Kils Klönschnack 03:20, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

response from London[edit]

Uwe wants to share this with you (from his talk page):

Hello Kils[edit]

Just would like to state that i have very much enjoyed being involved in a project of this nature. To see the speed of co-operation between various people was (Uwe, Lupo and Salleman and all others) fantastic. It was a complete buzz to go off researching about a scientific subject and coming to some understanding and appreciation of a creature that i would have no knowledge or interest in otherwise. I would like to say that it takes a damn good teacher to get others interested in what they teach and i for one, if only in a rudimentary and general way have found the subject of Krill and sorrounding issues of ecology and environment fascinating. I think that says a lot about your willingness to let others participate in something which you obviously have great knowledge in and could easily have been a lot less humble with. At some point i will put up some informtion on my home page so at least people know a little more about me. Am going to try to extend the article on Ice-algae so any info you may have would be good. I hope the article on Antartic Krill gets featured as i think it is now very good.

Wikiversity sounds like a good idea but will need more time to go through the proposal (not too sure what help i could be).

Once again thanks Uwe! Yakuzai 22:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

that feels good

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Antarctic_krill

did you see who gave the picture of the day? take care Uwe Kils Heringmini.jpg 23:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Ich hab ihn doch noch mal gesponsort - kannst ja waehlen, bitte, wenn Du ihn magst Uwe Kils Heringmini.jpg 12:44, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Danke sehr fuer die netten Worte - Gruss in die Heimat Uwe Kils Heringmini.jpg 02:04, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
I like your article about review in Wikipedia - good thaughts - we want to make more such pages and imagery for use in this http://de.wikiversity.org/wiki/Ozeanographie/kurse/ where we will use stamps like this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antarctic_krill&oldid=15415094 - see discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kils/Virtual_University - maybe you can add some Uwe Kils Heringmini.jpg 02:30, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia Server Images ...[edit]

Hey Marco, do you make this "Wikimediaserverimages"? Greetings User:Floffm

Hiya, yes I have done these images or at least updated them. Unfortunately I have no time at the moment to do this and would be very happy if someone else would be interested to try it out -- the image sources (openoffice files) were given in the image description. -- mkrohn 22:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Hey, i made a little Previw :o) drop me a line, for corections. I also have some questions. flo(ä)fsystem.de Greetings, Floffm de en

Really nice images, it's really cool just how big this thing is. It really could do with an update though, I've read about new orders of servers etc but the images hasn't been updated in a long time. I would be really awesome if you could try and make a new image with all the new servers :D --80.252.185.139 17:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it would be cool, but to be honest: I certeinly won't have the time to do the updates... :-( -- mkrohn 09:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources for TM[edit]

Hi Marco,

You removed simple citations for studies on Transcendental Meditation without providing any rational. Is it only that you believe that they aren't valid? Note that these studies are published in well known Journals. There are evidences that the reviewers were even more alert because of the important nature of the studies. It is standard policy on Wikipedia to provide the sources. These citations were perfectly in accord with Wikipedia:Cite_sources recommandation.

Amrit 21:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


TM page[edit]

I wanted to say thank you for hanging out at the TM page.... any help in getting the full story out there is appreciated by me. Sethie 19:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


Hanover/Hannover[edit]

You think it's Hanover 96 or Hannover 96? If oyu think it's Hanover 96 please vote on it's text's page. Kingjeff 04:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Germany is being replaced by a category[edit]

Hello! You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Germany page as living in or being associated with Germany. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, or one of the Bundesland-based subcategories, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Germany for instructions. --Angr (tɔk) 15:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


TM article[edit]

You've helped out in the past, and the Transcendeantal Meditation article is getting ripped apart... and I don't know that I have the juice to defend it on my own, any help would be appreciated. The last edit I reverted removed ALL the criticisms and controversies! Sethie 02:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, thanks for pointing out. Unfortunately I am away for the rest of the week, thus not sure I will be of much help -- mkrohn 19:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Marco, upon your return, your help would be appreciated. The TM censors have stripped major critical information from the TM article (including the section on the award-winning Journal of American Medical Associations expose on TM's deception in its scientific research). It has now been locked down in its seriously censored form. askolnick 29 June 2006

Possibly unfree Image:Debian-package-cycle.png[edit]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Debian-package-cycle.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. Fritz S. (Talk) 09:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Fritz. Thanks for writing me about the possibly unfree image. Honestly I am a bit astonished, as the image / page seems to be deleted within 1 day after notice and thus I did not have the chance to react and check the source. Not very nice... I am pretty sure that we (Wikipedia) have a permission to use the image under GFDL, but for that I would have liked to see the image description page / the image itself. Best regards -- mkrohn 12:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Usually it should have been listed for 14 days... don't know why it was deleted so soon... --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Could you then please restore the original image and page and give me a few days to prove that we can use the image under GFDL? Thanks! -- mkrohn 12:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, so I can't do that, sorry. But I just checked and Angr is the one who deleted the image,[12] so he should be able to help you. --Fritz S. (Talk) 12:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I contacted him and he restored the image for now. I have also sent an email to the creator of the image. -- mkrohn 16:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Debian-package-cycle.png listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Debian-package-cycle.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. Nv8200p talk 14:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

re:cutting KDE links[edit]

Yeah, I purposely cut those links. Over in Talk:KDE, it was agreed that there were too many external links, especially in comparison to other DE articles like GNOME and Xfce. So I decided to be bold and just remove everything except the essentials - the KDE homepage and the KDE news site. If there's a stie you wanted to keep, we can dicuss it over on the KDE article discussion page. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 20:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Heya Macro[edit]

) Well, I keep you on my list of people to call in for help when things get messy on the TM page, and well they're messy. Are you available to help out?Sethie 17:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Kde3.1-screenshot.jpeg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kde3.1-screenshot.jpeg, 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. Sherool (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies[edit]

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

micropayment / bitcoin[edit]

As I understand it, "bitcoins" allow you to trade money--their primary purpose is not allowing purchase of online content or small items. Bitcoins are also confusing and don't receive venture capital like other micropayment systems have. I don't think I'm wrong about bitcoins being more about "growing bitcoins" and "trading bitcoins" than actually purchasing items with said coins. It's not a micropayment system as much as a system that allows you to grow a bitcoin or two. Fleetham (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoins are some sort of money (you can buy products with them, you can exchange them for other currencies like USD). To my understanding there is no "primary" purpose of bitcoin: it is a payment system that can be used for different things, inter alia, for micropayments (as transaction fees are very small and processing small amounts can be done in seconds).
Regarding venture capital: as far as I know some VC firms are looking into Bitcoin or are already invested [13], however, I do not consider this to be a criterium for an inclusion in the article. -- mkrohn (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
You're right, venture capital is, here, only a cue to legitimacy and not a criterion for inclusion. I still have yet to be convinced as to the degree to which bitcoins are actually used to make micropayments; that's my largest worry about including a mention on the page... bitcoins could be used for micropayments, but why are they not used in such a manner currently? Fleetham (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Bitcoin can be used as a micro-payment system. I already did three very small transactions (i.e. < 1 USD), however, it is difficult to estimate the number of real world micropayments that take place. If you look at some sites, e.g.,bitcoin charts you will notice that they receive many small donations [14]. Also the existance of an API a la strongcoin [15] indicates that these types of payments are common. Finally I am aware of youtipit which is by its nature also related to small payments. -- mkrohn (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
We can revert back to the fact that bitcoins are not generally accepted, and while having a "clutch of offerers" that do accept micropayment mediums may be part and parcel of many micropayment systems today, what is on offer for the bitcoins? IDK, and neither would the Internet, I fear, if I was to do some research. Fleetham (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Micropayments[edit]

It seems that after your Bitcoin addition, large parts of the article are missiong. Did you delete them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.155.38.167 (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No, i did not delete any content from the page, please see the article history [16]. -- mkrohn (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)