User talk:Swtpc6800

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Copyright Permission
2 Welcome!
3 bibibibibibibbytes
4 Many thanks
5 Defined styles
6 Binary prefixes adoption
7 Electrical Experimenter
8 Thanks for your contributions
9 "Miss Ima"
10 TIME magazine covers
11 DS FD Head Document
12 Those funny Canadians
13 Straw poll on Talk:MOSNUM
14 Image copyright problem with Image:Amazing1.jpg
15 MOSNUM vote
16 Greg L RFC

[edit] Copyright Permission

I often take material from my web site and use it here on Wikipedia. http://www.swtpc.com/mholley

Here is the permission section from my web site.

I want this information to be available to all and you can make copies of any of the files for personal use. If you want to use a few images or pages for commercial use you may do so without additional permission. If you want to publish any of my original photos or material and need a written release, I can provide that.

SWTPC6800 00:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Swtpc6800, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karm a fist 18:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bibibibibibibbytes

Thank you for the KIM-1 direct quotes; none of this would have been necessary had the Wikipedia "consensus" actually made sense. --Wtshymanski 23:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Many thanks

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded for diligent research which resulted in finding the reference that shows the JEDEC is cited as "an industry wide standard-setting organization". Fnagaton 19:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defined styles

God that page is a mess. Can you explain what you meant by "Of the three defined styles for binary prefixes, the IEC prefixes are a distant third." What are these three defined styles? Where are you getting information on how common each is used? — Omegatron 17:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Binary prefixes adoption

Hi there, recently I did an example that shows exactly how much (little) consensus the IEC "standard" has. I'm copying it here for you and you may use this information and text in anyway you want. :) As you can probably remember a while ago on Wikipedia we had one user edit hundreds of articles to change from kilobyte to kibibyte (and all of the other units as well) so since this would alter any attempt to use Google to judge real world consensus on this issue the searches are conducted with "-wikipedia".

Historical use search terms	Results
kilobyte -wikipedia	1,940,000
megabyte -wikipedia	6,190,000
gigabyte -wikipedia	3,640,000

Total: 11,770,000

IEC Search terms	Results
kibibyte -wikipedia	28,800
mebibyte -wikipedia	17,100
gibibyte -wikipedia	19,000

Total: 64,900

Consensus for historical use: 99.449%

This shows the IEC standard does not have consensus, so I don't think the IEC can be seen as authoritative in this regard. Fnag aton 19:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Electrical Experimenter

Hi, the Academic Journals wikiproject is collaborating on Electrical Experimenter this week, and it would be great if you could help us. If you have physical copies of this magazine that are in the public domain (i.e. pre-1923), it would be great if you could scan a few pages, upload them to Commons, and note the availability on our "Transcription" page. Cheers, John Vandenberg (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your contributions

I just noticed the widespread use of this kibibyte/mebibyte/etc. on Wikipedia, made a few edits which were promptly reverted. Now from reading the discussion on MOSNUM I'm starting to realize that by presenting my own argument against the usage of the IEC prefixes, I'd probably be biting off more than I could chew. Thanks for being persistent in your efforts; you definitely have the stronger argument and I hope it'll effect change eventually. Regards, 130.49.2.244 (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Miss Ima"

	Nice job on "Miss Ima"!
	To all of the excellent editors who were part of the Karanacs-led collaboration to bring Ima Hogg to featured status, it was a pleasure working with you on such a fine article about a great lady. Thank you so much for your contribution to this fun collaboration. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TIME magazine covers

Hi there. I'd like to thank you for documenting the details of the TIME public domain issues (due to failure to renew copyright). You did this here. I was wondering if it would be a good idea to actually do a separate template and category for this. I noticed one of the covers is manually in Category:Fair use TIME magazine covers. Maybe a new category structure of TIME magazine covers, split into the fair use and PD (non-renewed) ones would help? Do you have a list of all the cover images around? Carcharoth (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a great idea to have a "magazine cover in public domain, not renewed" tag. This would be for all magazines, not just for Time. There would be a link to a central page that has evidence of the failure to renew. My Time magazine details would go there. (I think Newsweek has missed even more issues.) From correspondence with the current copyright holder, I have found the Ziff-Davis Publishing and Gernsback Publications did not renew copyrights as a mater of choice. Too much bother. I also found that a side effect the leveraged buyouts of the 1980s were the new owners forgot to renew out of print magazines. See Talk:Electronics Illustrated

You can find a list of Time magazine images I have tagged at the bottom of this page. User:Swtpc6800/Sandbox#Public_domain_issues

-- SWTPC6800 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have time to follow through now, and may not remember this in a few days. Could you remind me if I forget? Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DS FD Head Document

Thanks for pointing me to the ITC findings on the DS FD head matter. It is a rich source of material. Tom94022 (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Those funny Canadians

Swtpc6800, what did you mean on Talk:MOSNUM where you wrote “Good work. I didn't know the Canadians had their own measure of gravity.”? Greg L (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The third draft massaged has the following:

Discipline-specific preference

Where a discipline consistently uses its own units—either conventional or metric rather than SI—and knowledge of the discipline requires the reader to be conversant in them, Wikipedia mirrors this practice. Thus, for example, use:

"a 450 cc motorcycle engine" and never "a 450 ml" or "450 cm³" auto engine;
"Saudi Arabia exported 9.0 million barrels of crude”, not “Saudi Arabia exported 1.43 million cubic meters of crude”;
"a gravity gradient of 3.1 µGal/cm", not "a gravity gradient of 3.1 × 10^–6 s^–2", in the science of gravimetry (unless an article is about Canadian oil production or you are quoting a source that observes Canadian practices).

Thanks for all of your efforts on the "Follow current literature" addition to the MOS -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that. Yeah, I copied it and started editing. When I found that, I had a “what the hell—did I do that!?!” reaction. But then I quickly realized Tony was more interested merely in showing me a superior layout and fully well expected that I would go run with the thing and build off it. Ergo, no perceived need for extreme attention to detail. (Thanks again Tony if you’re reading this). And thank you Swtpc6800 for the ‘ataboy’; you are quite welcome. Greg L (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll on Talk:MOSNUM

I’ve got an idea. Please see User_talk:Dank55#MOSNUM.23Follow_current_literature. Greg L (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Amazing1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Amazing1.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MOSNUM vote

Swtpc6800, your vote on “Figure of Merit - Rewrite of section 4 (Greenbox)” hasn’t been updated lately. Note that the greenbox now has a header statement and a “binary prefix” placehold that declare that the greenbox can not be posted to MOSNUM unless a consensus-passed purplebox becomes part of it. Thus, we are finally free to vote on the greenbox on its various non-prefix merits without worry that doing could lead to it replacing “Follow current literature” (and its current treatment of the IEC prefixes). Greg L (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greg L RFC

I don't think you're supposed to endorse your own summary. — Omegatron (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.