User talk:Grolltech

Welcome!

Hello, Grolltech, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for North Atlantic right whale. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Epipelagic (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		For stepping up and creating Shark Finning Prohibition Act when its absence became glaring. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I thought of this recent study after I gave you the barnstar, but ... it's exactly what I've been doing for years. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted a couple of your changes to the U.S. constitutional amendment articles back to {{quote}} instead of {{cquote}} per WP:MOSQUOTE. However, you have made changes to apparently all of the articles, and I would prefer that you go back and undo your work. Just so you know, this issue has been discussed before on the Talk pages of some of the more prominent amendment articles, and cquote has been rejected as stylistically incorrect per WP guidelines. Thanks for your cooperation.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted or undone this change to all of the amendment articles. SMP0328. (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, folks... I was away at my parents' for Easter, and was thrust back into the 20th century until this morning.... Groll†ech (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Grolltech/Soldal v. Cook County has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Soldal v. Cook County, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciate your update today to the Provincetown article. The Cape articles in general need more good content like this. Cheers! --Seduisant (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to do it! I just added my "To Do's" to my user page. They are:

Work in progress

• User:Grolltech/Ocean Noise Pollution

To Do

• Geology of Cape Cod
• Provincetown Spit
• Long Point (Cape Cod)

Groll†ech (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'll do some Sandbox work on Long Point... but my "Haven't Written" articles list is already pretty long.

I prefer to keep conversations in one place; some editors (not me) use the talkback templates... --Seduisant (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did notice that list! And unfortunately, it's not one with which I'd have the least bit of familiarity! No worries, I've got a bunch of info tucked away on my hard drive that I'd need to dig out in order to put it into the 'Long Point' article.... Groll†ech (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks Great! so far... although the list of buildings may be of limited interest outside the Cape and Islands Group. But I've been wrong before. You may want to consider adding [File:Long Point CACO Map.png] to the article, which I just created from the swell NPS map available online. I did much the same thing for the North Truro article a while back. Keep up the good work... --Seduisant (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Hatfield–McCoy feud, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. SudoGhost 17:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Long Point (Cape Cod), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that when Cape Cod's village of Long Point, Massachusetts (pictured) became a ghost town, its residents took their houses with them – by floating them across the harbor? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Long Point (Cape Cod). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the DKY STATS for June 2012, this DYK garnered 9,409 page views, at an average rate of 1,176 views/hour during each of the 8 hours it appeared on the main page. In terms of views/hour, it ranked #8 for the month of June, 2012:

Article	Image	DYK views	Views / hour	DYK hook
Long Point (Cape Cod)		8,076 + 1,440 - (75+140)/2 = 9,409	1,176	... that when Cape Cod's village of Long Point, Massachusetts (pictured) became a ghost town, its residents took their houses with them – by floating them across the harbor?

—grolltech^(talk) 00:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The FAR has gone stale. Do you have any further comments on the article? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about that... I've put a great deal of work into an updated article on which I was working offline, and I was getting close to posting it when I had a computer crash a couple weeks ago... you'll notice my contributions fell off a cliff at that time. I'm still a day or two away from from getting the results of the data recovery effort. I'd completely understand if you need to close out the FAR – as I've never done one before, I assume the level of difficulty is the same for passing an FAR as it is to pass an FAC?  Grollτech (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The FAR will be closed out once a consensus is reached, however long that takes. If you improve the article as you'd planned, then it's likely everyone will say "keep" and it'll stay FA. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll do my best... thanks! Grollτech (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits. Do you think there should be a link to the pdf of the case somewhere in the intro or the box to the right of the text? Also, does it look like there are too many links(to other wiki articles) in the intro paragraph? Rybkovich (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How's this? I've changed the opening sentence of United States v. Jones (2012) to read:

United States v. Jones, 565 US ___, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012), was a 2012 Supreme Court of the United States case...

I tried using the {{cite court}} template, but that adds a period where, in this case, it would not be wanted.

As to whether there are too many wikilinks in the lead section, my only thought is that the parenthetical lists of which justices concurred with which opinions is unnecessary in the lead. That detail only muddies the water, and can be determined by looking at the infobox or reading the article further.

I did just notice the last sentence of the first paragraph, which can't possibly be correct as it stands:

The question of whether a warrantless search would be a violation of that amendment was not addressed.

A "warrantless search" is by definition a violation of the Fourth Amendment! I haven't read the referenced 'Goldstein article' yet (I'm about to), but that can't be what he said...

Grollτech (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think S.Ct. change works, but opinion page references would have to be changed to court cites. I would keep the justice names. If reading for first time, that is necessary info re SC opinions and makes sense that one should not have to look in other parts when getting an intro. Re Goldstein's argument: He considers an example of a trespass followed by short term GPS surveillance, all warrantless. This would be considered a search do to trespass. But based on Alito's concurrence, he thinks that there are four justices who would not think that a "search" occurred (do to them ignoring trespass and surveillance being short term) and hence they would also vote that a warrant was not required. Out of the 5 justices that think that a search had occurred - four (all except Sotomayor) are considered conservative, consequently it is rational to suppose that one of them would vote that a warrant was not required. In other words, they would vote that a search occurred because of trespass but then fit it into an exception and did not require a warrant, because they are conservative.Rybkovich (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. just thought that S.Ct. cites should be added to not replace pdf page cites, since the pdf file is also great to have a link too.Rybkovich (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Florida v. Jardines, Grolltech!

Wikipedia editor FreeRangeFrog just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Awesome article, good job!

To reply, leave a comment on FreeRangeFrog's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thanks very much! I also just created its companion article, Florida v. Harris, which was also before the Supreme Court today... Check it out! Grollτech (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		In recognition of the excellent grooming you are doing on marine life articles --Epipelagic (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Great to be recognized by someone who shares your interest – a peer, if you will. I've been distracted the last week and a half, but I'll be at it again, I still want to create a "dynamic" cladogram template... Grollτech (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comment on Talk:Autopsy_images_of_Ngatikaura_Ngati made a whole lot of bulletted points. Could you change them to numbered points please, so that they can be addressed in a systematic fashion? Stuartyeates (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, will do. Grollτech (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit you said "Someone in New Zealand would have a better chance of getting a hold of the judge's ruling, which is public information, and I know that someone in New Zealand is paying attention to this discussion who would be more than happy to produce it, if it will prove me wrong." It's hard to see how to read that except as an accusation of bad faith reference-hiding on my part, which is especially disappointing pretty much all of the directly-relevant refs on the article and talk page have been found by me, including a batch in the immediately preceding edit. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page stalker) That's one way of reading it. A less reactionary approach would be that of assuming one is naturally less inclined to pursue extended searching for refs which support an opposer's POV. Such a situation is human nature and is not the same thing as saying someone already holds refs which are deliberately being withheld. Editors who are willing to search extensively for evidence which substantiates all points of view are of tremendous value to the project and are probably under-appreciated. -- Trevj (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[yet another (edit conflict)] Thanks Trevj, I couldn't agree more.

In re-reading my post, I can certainly recognize and understand why you would feel that my comment was directed towards you, especially in light of my "apparently convenient edit conflict". I am *truly* sorry for that, and the best I can do is to give you my solemn word that I wrote what I wrote long before I even saw that I had an edit conflict, let alone the content of your contribution, which I *still* haven't read, because I've been beside myself over this misunderstanding. No, I assure you that I did not have you in mind at all when I wrote my post. Of course, you don't know me, aside from our interaction on that page, and that's unfortunate, because I am certainly not as shallow as to play coy little games like that. Besides, we may be on opposite ends of the spectrum on the issue of inclusion/exclusion, but during our various interactions on that page, I have found your responses to be reasonable [well, most of them – I chose to ignore the "building an encyclopaedic article" remark ;-)], specific and logical (which I like), and fair. Why would I do that, especially when doing so would undermine my own credibility – even more so on this specific point – one which is not rooted in the "moral/ethical quagmire", but rather one which I believe to be purely based on empirical evidence and logic?

I'll tell you what was on my mind when I wrote that... This is a highly polarizing issue, one in which few people will feel ambivalent enough to be impartial – myself included, and I recognize that. You would surely know better than I, but I daresay that the more or less evenly divided opinions on the issues that have swirled about in our little wiki-microcosm have probably mirrored quite closely against the "bigger picture" of the public opinions within New Zealand. Am I right? I also know that "vocal dissenters" (such as ourselves) are like cockroaches – for every one of us that you see, there are a hundred (or a thousand) more lurking in the shadows muttering to themselves, "mmm-hmm, that's right, you tell 'em!" THAT'S who I hoped to hear from. I was hoping to reach someone (preferably from my roach clan) who happened to live around the corner from the Auckland High Court, or, being that it was Monday morning (your time) when I posted, maybe I'd reach someone who would stop in during their lunch break to get a photocopy from the clerk's office.

As you are only too painfully aware, my responses can become a tad, er, um, voluminous on certain rare occasions (*ahem*). It takes me a good deal of time to write those responses. Yes, I knew that you were preparing a response to me, which is why I was wanted to get my response to Bilby finished before you got your response posted. With the household distractions while sitting in front of the TV on a Sunday night, my 3100+ byte response took 2.5 hours... and I can safely guarantee you one thing: I made a single save attempt (which failed due to the edit conflict), and that attempt was only about one minute before I finally saved my post. I don't know how to access the logs, but I know that somewhere there is a server log that recorded my edit conflict, and which would prove that I would not have had the time to re-write my response based on yours during that minute. Grollτech (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks for joining WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. I think you must have set a world's record on nominating something, getting it approved, and already promoted for Main Page appearance. Wow. You'd better do some more, because DYK seems to appreciate your output. — Maile (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't have been done without your guidance! Thanks for that, very much appreciated! Grollτech (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 November 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Florida v. Jardines, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that 28 U.S. states have asked the Supreme Court to allow police dogs (pictured) to sniff at the front door of any house – without a search warrant or probable cause – despite assertions that the dog is wrong four out of five times? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

On 14 November 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Florida v. Harris, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that 28 U.S. states have asked the Supreme Court to allow police dogs (pictured) to sniff at the front door of any house – without a search warrant or probable cause – despite assertions that the dog is wrong four out of five times? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

According to the DKY STATS for November 2012, these two combined DYK's garnered 8,791 page views, at an average rate of 1,099 views/hour during each of the 8 hours they appeared on the main page. In terms of views/hour, they ranked #29 for the month of November, 2012:

Article	Image	DYK views	Views / hour	DYK hook
Florida v. Jardines Florida v. Harris		5,610 + 3,181 = 8,791	1,099	... that 28 U.S. states have asked the Supreme Court to allow police dogs (example pictured) to sniff at the front door of any house – without a search warrant or probable cause – despite assertions of unreliability?

—grolltech^(talk) 23:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please see Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Problematic hook. Thanks! —David Levy 03:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...that I have nominated Nycticebus kayan for Did You Know? Chris857 (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code that was emailed to you.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nycticebus kayan, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 2013 the Bornean slow loris (Nycticebus menagensis) was split into three additional species: N. kayan, N. bancanus, and N. borneanus? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nycticebus kayan. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Grolltech,

my name is Magnus 653gnosu (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Juel and I am a student and freelance journalist from Norway. Currently I am writing a piece of article about containerization for a norwegian magazine called Aftenposten Innsikt, I guess you could say it is the norweigan version of magazines like Der Spiegel or Time (http://www.aftenposteninnsikt.no/). I wonder if I could use your picture of shipping lanes in the world in my article? You will off course be credited for the picture, either with "Grolltech" or with your real name if that is your prefered choice. The picture I am thinking about is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shipping_routes_red_black.png[reply]

Please let me know you opinion on this.

Best wishes

Magnus Juel

Magnus,

Thanks very much for your interest, and for contacting me. The image is licensed under the CC-BY-SA Creative Commons license, you may definitely use the image any way you like, with attribution. Note that the image is a derivative of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shipping_routes.png – in keeping with the license, attribution must also include the original author (especially since he/she did most of the work, and I simply applied color to the image).

It would therefore be appropriate to attribute "Tomislav Hengl/Dieter Groll" if space allows, or "T. Hengl/D. Groll" otherwise.

By the way, I don't know if you are using the image for print, online, or both, but I have created several other color options as well, available here, if one of those might work better for you. Let me know if you have any difficulty viewing the folder. I can also make any other color combo you prefer.

Finally, if the article will appear online, I'd love a link to it, or an estimated publish date, so I can keep an eye out for it. Thanks again! Grollτech (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pi Kappa Phi Founders.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick and positive reply! I will make sure that the picture gets credited as you explained. I love the other versions of the picture as well, hard to make a choice! My deadline is March 15, but my editor has not told me when the article will be published. I guess it will be sometime in the upcoming two-three months. I will get the finished article in pdf, so I could mail it to you if I get your e-mail. Alternatively, I can send you the link to the article if it gets published on Aftenposten Innsikts website. Aftenposten normally posts old articles from the printed version a month or two after it was in print. Let me know how you feel, and keep up the splendid work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 653gnosu (talk • contribs) 18:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Grolltech; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! I'll see if I can find any online versions. Most of the material I have is old photocopies. I'll go in once I have something to add! Erodley (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am insinuating only that it is not a good idea to edit a wikipedia article and then point to that same article in trying to make a point. It just does not have any credibility. Everyone knows that nothing in wikipedia can be cited as a reliable source anyway. And the model is a student working on their homework putting something into wikipedia and then citing wikipedia as the source. The correct way to cite something from an article, is edit the article all you want, and cite the references in the article, not the article. Apteva (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering the poll at the village pump about how effectively we communicate existing policy via the actual wording on the policy pages. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on Barek's talk page and he told me the banners on the top of the pages may be taken down. Also, stop bugging me about the sockpuppet incident. It wasn't a huge thing and I only had one other account. I saw investigations with over 6. Please let this whole thing blow over and I will go back to normal editing. I'm even considering getting a WP:MENTOR. Leoesb1032 (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Grolltech, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Pratyya (Hello!) 06:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your warning to Groupuscule here, particularly its shouting and sarcastic tone. Clearly cited sentences in quotation marks are generally not copyright violations in my understanding; certainly, you would expect a direct quotation to repeat its source word-for-word, so I'm not sure why you appear so surprised and outraged about that. Perhaps you could clarify? -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Khazar2: Yes, I just realized my mistake about a minute ago... undoing it now...  —Grollτech (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do appreciate your vigilance--Wikipedia always needs more people doublechecking sources. But this is a good example of why it's better to go in asking than shouting... -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Khazar2: Of course, I feel about an inch tall right now... Can you look at his talk again, and let me know if there is any more that I can do to correct it? Thanks  —Grollτech (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat it. Mistakes happen, and Group's an experienced and good-hearted editor who I think is unlikely to hold a grudge or be too worried about it. And again, sincere thanks that you're checking for copyvio in the first place, which not enough Wikipedians do. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can you explain further to me about the "re-claimed" heat of venous blood and how it transferred to arterial blood? I am getting confused since my teacher told me that the counter-current exchange should be from warm and thich arteries to cool thin veins to transfer heat to the surface of tuna. I don't really understand the re-claimed part you said. I've looked up papers about the counter-current heat exchanger but without any detailed illustration. I've also checked out the wikipedia page of the counter-current heat exchange: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countercurrent_exchange#Countercurrent_exchange_of_heat_in_organisms, which looks like it is from arteries to veins.

Thanks for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wosiiro (talk • contribs) 06:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can try, but I'm really not an expert on the topic myself... First off, many species utilize a rete mirabile ("wonderful net"), for many different purposes. For example, in slow-moving sloths and lorises, which may cling to or hang from a tree branch for an eternity, they use the rete to lower their limb temperature, and therefore lower the metabolic requirement for oxygen and nutrients in the tissues of that limb.

In tuna, the direction of heat exchange does seem counter-intuitive at first glance, because we humans naturally think in terms of blood flow in warm-blooded mammals such as ourselves. The key to this puzzle (I think) is that in tunas, the heart and gills operate at ambient temperature – the temperature of the ocean. Also, don't think of the arteries in terms of the human aorta, for inside the rete, all of the veins and arteries are a maze of thin vessels that touch each other over a high surface area, as shown in the rete mirabile article.

A-ha! I was right! I just found a great quote from a new reference (well, it's from 1984, but it's new to me) – which I'll probably use in the article – that explains it better than I can:

"Oxygenated blood that has just reached thermal equilibrium with ambient sea water in the gills enters the rete on the arterial side, while warmed, deoxygenated, and carbon dioxide-laden blood enters on the venous end. In the rete, countercurrent flow and the high surface area contact between the two blood supplies facilitate the transfer of nearly all of the metabolic heat in the venous blood to arterial blood, thus conserving muscle temperature. After exiting the rete, arterial blood continues to the red muscle capillary beds, and cooled venous blood flows to the gills where carbon dioxide is excreted and oxygen is loaded."^{[Tuna 1]}

So in other words, the oxygenated blood in the arteries is heated from ambient temperature on its way from the heart to the muscles. By the way, when they say "nearly all of the metabolic heat", they're not kidding, because the heat exchange in the rete is extremely efficient in tunas – in bluefin tuna, for example, that heat exchange approaches 99% efficiency! The warmer blood, as the article further explains, is able to deliver more oxygen and ATP to the muscles.

Hope that helps!  —Grollτech (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the paragraph you restored? It cites no sources, it doesn't fit the chronology of the section it's in, and the quality of the prose is really quite poor. I couldn't (and still can't) find anything in there worth incorporating into the article, so I felt the best course of action was simply to remove it all.

In future I will add an edit summary to any changes I make. 78.105.161.59 (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. After reviewing it again, I agree with you, and have reverted my revert. When such a large chunk gets removed without a reason, the first thing that springs to mind is "blanking". Thanks again for the follow-up.  —Grollτech (talk) 03:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, We love the NSA eavesdropping seal that seems to trace back to your creation. Is that accurate? We found it through Creative Commons tracing back through wikimedia with indication you are allowing for public use including commercial with modification, but we are very much proponents of intellectual property rights and want to confirm your ok. The symbol will be on a flier for our activist site, Loyal9.org. We will be happy to attribute to you if you would like.

Thank you. Josh Jackson Loyal9.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.50.152.185 (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Josh,

• Thanks very much for asking, that's very cool to see. I wish I could take the credit, because it is a great logo... but that credit belongs to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://eff.org)
• I merely uploaded it from Flickr, at http://www.flickr.com/photos/8471520@N04/3532485014.
• It is indeed licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC-BY-2.0) license.

Thanks again,  —Grollτech (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your Support of Freedom for the Thought That We Hate at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful contributions to Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. I just removed the excess line breaks because it has the added impact, over time, of making the page size too big and load times longer. Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your contributions to US v. Jones. I like most of them but some clean-up is still required. In particular I think there's a fair bit of OR in your legal analysis of the opinion itself. I don't have the time right at the moment to do work on this but I will in the next few days. Cheers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman: thanks very much, and I welcome the concern about WP:OR – that is important to keep one honest. I think that after your review of the referenced material, you'll find significantly less OR than you might expect right now.  —Grollτech (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DrFleischman: I'll take it a step further, to say that none of it is OR. In fact, the paragraph that you removed speaks to the heart of what makes United States v. Jones notable in the first place.  —Grollτech (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that, while I think your analysis is sound, it's still your analysis. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, @DrFleischman: it's not mine, it's Scalia's and Goldstein's. Most of the paragraph that you removed, for example, is taken directly from the majority opinion. I did not include citations due to WP:LEDECITE, but perhaps they should be added in this instance. I would propose adding back the following paragraph in its stead:

This conclusion is consistent with the Court’s early Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, which "was tied to common-law trespass, at least until the latter half of the 20th century."^{[Jones 1]} Most later cases "have deviated from that exclusively property-based approach", and more commonly turn on the invasion of one's right to privacy.^{[Jones 2]} The minority of the justices followed that privacy-based approach, and concluded that "long-term" GPS surveillance – four weeks, in this case – constituted a search that violated Jones' "reasonable expectation of privacy".^{[Jones 3]}

Yes, but is it sufficiently cited to say "this conclusion is consistent with..."? That was the majority's analysis but not the minority's analysis, and perhaps not other legal experts' analysis. Perhaps this can be addressed by adding some attribution...? (P.S. I'm watching this page so you don't have to ping me.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You raise a good point, although I might contend – only my opinion, btw – that all nine of the justices would agree that it is consistent with the pre-1967 jurisprudence. They differ, I believe, on whether that is still relevant in this day and age.  —Grollτech (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that material back in with attribution and we can see how it looks. And when I get to it, I'll likely add attribution to the other similar passages in the body. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grolltech, thanks for your improvements to the 4th amendment. WikiProject Freedom of speech and WikiProject Mass surveillance are trying to get that article up to FA, since it's a very relevant subject these days, a subject both timeless and timely. The article is now at FAC, but I'm new to the process would appreciate any feedback and advice you can offer. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

I would love to use your picture for the cover of an assignment for university. I would love to request your permission for that. Can I? The picture is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shipping_routes.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.115.15 (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, an image we found on Wikipedia titled "The Start of the life-boat c 1900 Cape Cod" was uploaded by you. We were hoping to use this image in a display we're preparing for the Pt. Betsie Lighthouse in Frankfort, MI. Would you be able to send me a high-resolution scan of that image? I understand if there would be a fee associated with this. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Colin Cook Split Rock Studios [email protected] 651-631-2211 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.44.205 (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, as you can see by the original image, the postcard itself is a sepia halftone line block image, so the pixellation is built into the original image. I'd be happy to put you in touch with the owner of that postcard, if you'd still like to obtain a higher-resolution scan of that card...  —Grollτech (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized there's another Wikipedian who lives on Cape Cod, so welcome to the club! Let me know if you need anything during the upcoming event, as there are a multitude of resources that you can use to make this easier. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.[reply]

Grolltech, got your message. Let me talk to our contact, and, at the very least, get you into our next round of mailouts. I can possibly get you into the group that is being processed right now. Will update ... The Interior (Talk) 22:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this box useful:

{{Recent changes in Unicode}}

Any thoughts? -DePiep (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you were kind enough to look over my proposal to revise template Registration required. It has taken me a while to find the time to follow your recommendations, but I think it's done, with testcases all satisfactory. I may have messed up deleting transclusion of Registration required documentation, as I thought it would need to be replaced entire with edited Subscription required documentation. Would you please advise where I should locate sandboxed doc? Prefer discussion on Talk page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Registration_required Thanks! Paulscrawl (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by intentional homicide rate. Sorry to undo your edit. I know it was a lot of work. But I edit the Help:Sorting page, and understand the problems fairly well that can happen with row numbering. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Timeshifter: yes, that was a lot of work, most of which had absolutely nothing to do with row numbering. You said that "References in the chart break the row alignment between rank column and main table." I see your point, and accept that argument, but it's an incomplete argument. In fact, said alignment is already broken, and part of my reasoning for doing what I did was to fix the very problem of which you speak! Perhaps the real issue is the fragility of an implementation that uses a separate table to define a "rank" column. Frankly, from an accessibility perspective, I think that such separate-table implementations are a very bad idea that should be eliminated from Wikipedia. I apologize if those are your invention, but that's the truth.

Please remember that not everyone is using the same device and browser that you are using. Are you aware that for every user that has their browser set with a zoom any larger than 100% (which is a very large population of users), then "rank" columns are only meaningful on very narrow tables, such as the demo tables on Help:Sorting? In real life examples with wide tables, such as List of countries by intentional homicide rate, the rank column becomes meaningless drivel the instant any row changes height due to word wrapping. For example, zoom the page to 150%, and you will see that the final rank, 218, now aligns somewhere in the middle of the table!

By eliminating the needless "See notes below" column, it doesn't fix the problem entirely, but it narrows the table considerably, making the zoom less of an issue. Further, given the range of devices that may be used for display, articles are not supposed to be positionally "self-aware", using words like "shown below" or "on the right". There's a guideline about that somewhere, but I don't have the time to look for it right now. The use of {{efn}} and {{notelist}} templates is a simple (for both editor and reader), intuitive, officially-sanctioned, and meaningful way of presenting references and notes within a table. Sprinkling some notes at the top of the table, some at the bottom of the table, and some in a superfluous column on the side is certainly not sanctioned, nor is a separate rank column.

If you have any ideas to solve this issue, I'd love to hear it. I also suspect that we should elevate this conversation to a broader audience, like Help_talk:Sorting. In fact, don't bother replying on my page, I'll just copy/paste this over there now. —grolltech^(talk) 18:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

—grolltech^(talk) 19:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I noticed the Pi Kappa Phi Coat of Arms that you uploaded for the Pi Kappa Phi Wikipedia page is actually a digital recreation and not the official crest. The fraternity actually went through a rebrand last summer and the Coat of Arms was updated slightly. Is there any chance I could send you the correct version to replace the one you uploaded?

Thanks, John Andrews Jandrewz7 (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I figured out how to update the Coat of Arms, and have made the change myself. Thanks.

Jandrewz7 (talk) 16:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jandrewz7: I need more information. Can you point me in the direction of some evidence that the "official crest" was rebranded? Do you work at HQ? Who created the image you have presented? I've found no evidence to back up your claim. Also, can you send me the new blazon? For example, the "typical" crest (with a solid gold book atop a solid gold wreath) that one finds on stickers at college bookstores has never been correct, given this excerpt from the "official blazon":

Crest: On a wreath of the colors (Or and Azure) a Grecian lamp flamed Or, surmounting a closed book fesswise azure banded and edged of the first.

Translated, that means:

Crest: On a wreath of the colors (gold and blue) a gold Grecian lamp flamed, atop a blue closed book arranged horizontally with gold bands and gold edging.

As an aside, if the National HQ did in fact adopt those changes, it's a shame that their designer didn't understand or follow the rules of heraldry, in that two "metals" (in our case, silver (white) and gold (yellow)) must never touch. A thin blue line separating the white and gold would have been much more appropriate.

Finally, I see that you uploaded your image to Wikimedia Commons. That's inappropriate, since you do not own copyright in the "official crest", the fraternity owns it. Therefore "fair use" must be claimed – fair-use images must remain here at the local English Wikipedia. On the other hand, a blazon – being just words – is in the public domain by definition. One's own SVG representation based on the blazon (a critical requirement) may in fact be copied to the Commons – as long as the creator releases their otherwise-copyrightable interpretation into the public domain. My file meets those criteria. See Commons:Commons:Coats of arms for details. —grolltech^(talk) 03:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Grolltech: I am not a Wikipedia expert, I can tell that you know your stuff. I apologize for doing things the wrong way, I was just sick of seeing that unofficial Coat of Arms on Pi Kappa Phi's Wiki page. Yes, I do work at HQ and last summer at the 54th Supreme Chapter, we launched a complete re-branding of Pi Kappa Phi, Pi Kappa Phi Foundation, Pi Kappa Phi Properties and The Ability Experience (Formerly Push America). You can find the Pi Kappa Phi brand guidlines here: [1] Are you able to help me follow the proper procedures to get the Coat of Arms uploaded in the proper location?

Also, we don't actually even use the Coat of Arms as our official logo, so can we just use our official logo? The Star Shield and logotype? That way we aren't even needing to discuss crest requirements.

Thanks,

John Jandrewz7 (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jandrewz7: Hi John, thanks for getting back to me and linking to the Guidelines, that's very helpful. And yes, I can help navigate the file placement issues. Wikipedia is very strict about even the appearance of a copyright violation, especially in the Commons. Whether we use the coat of arms or the official logo, we will nevertheless run into the fact that copyright in both images is owned by the fraternity. It would be ill-advised for the fraternity to relinquish either of those to the CC-BY-SA licensing required by Wikipedia, for once they do that, the public is free to use the image(s) and create derivative works with no ability for the fraternity to control them. We can side-step that license requirement – without compromising the fraternity's copyright – by creating our own SVG image based on the blazon. Hence the reason I asked about that a few days ago.

I also learned a bit more about heraldry's rule of tincture, the name of which I couldn't recall in my previous comment. Note that this is considered a very important rule—so much so that arms that violate it are considered "false arms" or "arms of enquiry".

I found it ironic to read in the June 3, 1915 issue of the Star & Lamp (p. 7) that "The coat of arms has been corrected according to the rules of heraldry..." and now—100 years later—it was changed to violate those rules. I love the placement of the stars, as it's historically accurate, and I don't even mind the new blue. I intensely dislike the white book, white wreath, and white motto, all outlined in gold. Wreaths are almost always "of the colors" of the arms itself – blue and gold, in our case – as attested to by the blazon. And how exactly does one physically make a white wreath that is outlined in gold, anyways? As best as I can tell, those were never formally adopted by the fraternity, (well, not until 2014, anyways). I suspect it was instead the result of some printer in the late '70s or early '80s who cut corners to simplify things. I'd love to be proven wrong on that front, but I won't hold my breath.

As an example of an unintended consequence of our "metal on metal" violation, please take a look at the black & white images. The first column shows the "before 2014" version of our coat of arms, rendered as black and white thumbnails, while the second column shows the new version, taken from the Branding Guideline document you provided. Note that because of the violation, the gold chevron must—for the first time ever—be depicted as black on a black shield, even though the gold stars and gold swords still render as white! The gold in the crest and motto must also appear as black—once again the result of the same violation. I don't know about you, but I simply do not identify with the black-on-black arms shown in the right-hand column... it looks foreign, and doesn't resonate "Pi Kappa Phi" to me.

Be that as it may, I've taken the liberty of fashioning an updated blazon for the newly-branded arms:

Shield: Azure ( #005596 ) a chevron Or ( #E7A614 ) fimbriated Argent (in enquiry), between in chief three mullets in chevron and in base two swords crossed in saltier, all of the second.
Crest: On a wreath Argent fimbriated Or a Grecian lamp flamed of the same, surmounting a closed book fesswise of the first banded and edged of the last.
Motto: On a banner Argent doubled and fimbriated Or the words οὐδέν διάσπασει ἡμᾶς, all in uppercase Greek letters.

I'll have a finished draft of a revised SVG image for you to review, hopefully this afternoon. I'd like to ask that you share this discussion with your colleagues at HQ. Here's a link for you to do just that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Grolltech#Incorrect_Pi_Kappa_Phi_Coat_of_Arms.

Yours in Pi Kappa Phi, —grolltech^(talk) 20:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jandrewz7: Here is still further evidence that the wreath and crest were "of the colors" (blue and gold) up until last year. If one looks at the wreath on the front cover of the Summer 1972 Directory Edition of the Star and Lamp, you will see that alternating pairs of the wreath's "twists" have an extra vertical line going through them. That line designates the darker of the alternating colors gold and blue. Next, turning back to p.23 of the Branding Guidelines, there is a "modern-day" adoption of that same image at the lower right (with the red slash), where one can (barely) distinguish that the artist attempted to duplicate those marks simply by tracing the whole crest in gold.

Be that as it may, here is a draft of the 2014 coat of arms, as blazoned above. I hope HQ will consider the rule of tincture, or—at the very least—will consider restoring the historically-accurate symbolic colors to the wreath and book in the crest, so as not to adopt and propagate a scrivener's error for longevity. —grolltech^(talk) 19:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Pi Kappa Phi COA - metal on metal.jpg. 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. --B-bot (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that you have been involved in editing—Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Old Harbor U.S. Life Saving Station at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hughesdarren (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grolltech, can't find any evidence of QPQ, have you reviewed a DYK lately? Cheers Hughesdarren (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, as I was away from technology for the weekend. This has been addressed on Template:Did you know nominations/Old Harbor U.S. Life Saving Station. —grolltech^(talk) 05:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Grolltech, I'm working on Terry stop and Consent search. Right now I'm doing research and putting some stuff in the Talk pages. I plan on working on this for the next few weeks. The articles, as written, are pretty bad, I would say. So I intend to rewrite them a little at a time. I'd like to invite you to the Talk pages to help me toss some ideas around, if you have the time.

Thanks! Seahawk01 (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Grolltech, I am looking for a better quality image of this tuna. It is very important. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_bluefin_tuna The file is called File:Bluefin-big.jpg

I would really like to print it on my tiles in the kitchen, like they did this one. https://nl.pinterest.com/pin/405746247674669905/

Could you please help me? Could you let me know where to get it?

Kind regards, Jolanda van Dongen The Netherlands betty-blue.nl [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.161.191.229 (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jolanda,

This is already a high-resolution image at 1,728 × 1,140 pixels... Check out https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Bluefin-big.jpg to see if that meets your needs. That was the highest resolution I was able to find from the NOAA website. If you need higher, you might try to use TinEye or Google reverse image search, but I think you won't find any higher resolutions than this.

Best Regards, —grolltech^(talk) 19:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at [email protected].

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tuna-cladogram has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX^talk 16:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]