User talk:Enochlau/Archive 2004

Welcome
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!


 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.


 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: . If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.


 * If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 23:42, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi - if you'd like the chess set image to be a featured image then you need to add it to here: Featured picture candidates to be voted on first. Thanks. Secretlondon 23:13, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Images and copyrights
Hi, nice to see some nice photos! The glass chess set made me burst out laughing - I spent about four months staring at pictures of a glass chess set as a test case for a ray tracing engine I was working on.

In the discussion, it sounded like you were a little confused about how and why to put a copyright declaration on it. It's an awful, messy issue, but especially for something like Wikipedia, I recommend looking at [Creative Commons] licenses. They provide prewritten, lawyer-approved licenses to suit a whole range of conditions. The license you use most closely resembles a "cc-by" license; using the Creative Commons license lets you easily flag it in a way that people can immediately recognize. Personally, I just put my pictures in the public domain (they discuss that there too). Anyway, they have good explanations of licensing issues.

I hope you keep contributing nice photos! --Andrew 07:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Intermediate value theorem image
Hi! Thanks a lot for your nice intermediate value theorem image. I was wondering if it would be possible to produce a version where the k is replaced by a u? This would fit better with the article's text, and also with the common convention that k stands for an integer. Cheers, AxelBoldt 17:15, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Changed. Enochlau 01:29, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cleanup vs. Speedy deletion
Yesterday you added to 2005 in Ireland - however as that article contained only editing experiments it was a candidate for speedy deletion. For those you should use the template instead. But anyway, I found it and deleted now. andy 12:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

cat mouth photo
Just wanted to say that's an awesome photo. Lachatdelarue [[User talk:Lachatdelarue|(talk)]] 15:18, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Enochlau 23:43, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Polynomials
Can you list the polynomials you used to generate the images at Polynomial (and possibly at the other articles where the images are used)? I've guessed two, so far, I can't do so for the quart/quintics. Dysprosia 14:23, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll get to it asap, I probably have it written down somewhere. Enochlau 05:14, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done! Enochlau 04:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Central Photo
Love the new photo, Enoch. Phallic isn't it?! Thortful 05:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
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:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " 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 multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". 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)


 * There are two main reasons why WikiTravel cannot use our articls. (1) because GFDL and CC articles cannot be mixed for legal reasons and (2) because the GFDL requires pages of the license to be included with every article copied.  This is impractical for a printed 3-fold travel brochure.  The GFDL is designed for a book with relatively few authors and not for the application that WikiTravel uses.     – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)   21:38, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've decided to stay on GFDL, for the time being anyway. I think it suffices, despite its shortcomings and I find the arguments presented by some about there being a complete mess in terms of having licenses all over the place convincing. Wikipedia was founded on a GFDL premise and I think if it were to be changed to work better with Creative Commons, the change should be made by universal concensus (via voting), not simply by a small group of users. Enochlau 00:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * We need to stop thinking of articles as pieces of work of sole authorship, and look at articles more as derivative works comprised of a set of contributions from various sources. If, for example, all contributions were licensed CC-BY, then the articles could be rereleased as CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or GFDL. As it stands, we seem to indicate or imply that all contributions are GFDL. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ] ]] 20:55, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * The newer version of the GFDL 2.0 should ideally fix any problems that we currently have with the GFDL, but it may not be directly compatible with the CC-by-sa, so we will need to multi-license some articles to let them be used in other non-GFDL projects. The multi-licensing will not cause a mess at Wikipedia, because it does not change Wikipedia.  We retain the status quo here.  When wanting to share articles, the same process that we use to remove copyright violations from our articles will also be applied to the articles being shared to remove those contributions which "violate" the copyright of the destination.  A number of people are quite comfortable with this process, so it should not be too messy to do much the same thing with multi-licensing articles. RM 13:58, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Identifying and removing those contributions that are non CC-by-sa compliant for use in other free projects would be an absolute nightmare. Unless you've got a computer that can speak fluent English, you'll have to do all of it by hand. In the end, there will be the temptation to just copy the entire lot if the large proportion of contributors are CC-by-sa compliant. I don't believe the analogy with copyright violations is valid - here, if any copyvio material is pasted into an article, the material is removed and cannot be edited further. In this case, any uncompliant material would have been heavily edited, and in many cases unrecognisable; however, it's influence is still there nonetheless. Enochlau 06:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It is incorrect to assume that copyright violations are always caught before substantial changes are made. As has been pointed out elsewhere, no matter where in the process, as long as just the portions of the articles containing the copyvio material are removed, then the rest of the article can be used, because under U.S. copyright law, a derivative work must actually contain part of the original work in some form to be considered a derivative work.  Where you are correct is that it would have to be done by hand, and it could be difficult, but not for the person doing the licensing.  Nevertheless, I respect your right to disagree and will bother you no more on this topic. RM 16:17, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless, thank you for the contribution you have made to Wikipedia by making people more aware of how this project's licensing works. I've enjoyed the interesting discussion with you. Cheers. Enochlau 23:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Graphs
What program do you use to generate your graphs? They're prettier than the graphs I've done in the past with Maple. &mdash; [[User:Flamurai|flamuraiTM]] 07:50, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Haha, I used a program that I wrote myself in .NET that has nice antialiasing, which is something missing from professional packages like Mathematica, and indeed, Maple. It's not very complete, but I'll let you know if I do any more work on it (I'm a little hesistant to release it publicly at this early stage). Cheers. Enochlau 09:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CSD
Heya, please note there is a short list of narrow criteria for Speedy Deletion, which you can find at WP:CSD. Vanity is not a criterion for speedy deletion, please put such pages on VfD. --fvw *  12:32, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
 * Sure, thanks for that. Enochlau 00:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)