User talk:Stepleton

GRB 970508 recording
Hi there! I noticed that you made a recording of GRB 970508, an article I worked on. I was very pleased with the recording! I have some feedback for you:


 * Inconsistent "oh" and "zero". "GRB 970508" was spoken "Nine seven zero five zero eight" whereas "z ≈ 1.09" was spoken "one point oh nine".
 * The radio antennae in File:USA.NM.VeryLargeArray.02.jpg are in a triangular arrangement; your recording said that they are in a linear arrangement
 * All fluences are ×10-6; the first fluence was spoken "ten to the sixth".

I am very curious as to why you chose to record this relatively obscure article. Do you have an interest in astronomy? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments! I noticed the oh/zero thing on a relistening but missed the ten to the six/negative six issue. I'm thinking the former mistake is excusable for now, but I will try to find time to fix the latter issue. I'd probably also change the "linear" to "multilinear", since "triangular" to me suggests that the dishes are on the edges of the triangle or at the vertices.
 * I have no particular interest in astronomy; instead, I've always wanted to record an article, and the Spoken Wikipedia project recommended going for Featured Articles. GRB 970508 stood out to me mostly because it has an endearing wonkishness to it, I suppose. Congrats on the article becoming a Featured Article, btw! Stepleton (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you'd like to continue recording science-related articles (which I think you should), WikiProject Elements has a plethora of featured articles without recordings, such as Francium, Yttrium, and Niobium. As we work towards our ultimate goal of having all 118 elements featured, I think it would be really cool to have them spoken in a consistent voice. Whaddya think? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a neat idea. Maybe I'll make one of those my next project! Stepleton (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Audio license
Hi Stepleton, I saw you licensed the audio file you uploaded as GFDL-with-disclaimers. This creates unnecessary baggage and limits compatibility with other projects. Perhaps you could relicense your work as suggested by WP:FIXGFDL to GFDL or the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License cc-by-sa-3.0 now preferred by Wikipedia. Thank you Hekerui (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Please know that the Spoken Wikipedia boilerplate still specifies only GFDL-with-disclaimers. I'm not sure of the most appropriate way to change this---for my file, I used the automatic change-to-dual-licensing tag listed in the resources you provided.Stepleton (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The boilerplate is outdated and it's your work and you can release the work under any free license you wish that is accepted by Wikipedia - the project now uses a Creative Commons license across the board so the explanation given in the boilerplate didn't exactly make sense. You relicensed it under a Creative Commons license, which is good, but that one still has a disclaimer because you used the relicense provision - know that you can dual-license without the relicense provision, if you want, and simply add a proper cc license, especially since this cc license wasn't actually added as part of the GFDL licensing update. That's your choice alone. I'll change the weird boilerplate thing to avoid future confusion and mention the change on the project talkpage. Regards Hekerui (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the absolute least restrictive licensing I can assign to the media, and how do I specify this? I would release the recording into the public domain if I could, but since I'm reading Wikipedia, this is probably not possible, right? Stepleton (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, it's not possible. And I need to amend, it matters what license you mention in your recording. You used the GNU license, so you can use GFDL as less restrictive than your current license (in the sense of lacking the whole disclaimer mess), and it is automatically compatible with cc-by-sa-3.0 per the license provision, so that doesn't need mentioning if you allow relicensing per migration. Sorry for the confusion I added and thanks again for the hard work recording. Hekerui (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)