User talk:Glrx

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Welcome!

Hello, Glrx, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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
• How to write a great article
• 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ray^Talk 19:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

mail

re: Talk:IEEE 754#Restore link to ungated draft of the_standard?

I can't figure out how to send you mail, so I can forward the note I received. Gah4 (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gah4: The email does not matter. Neither you nor I can vouch for the validity of such a release. Furthermore, such an email is worthless unless it comes from the copyright holder, which is IEEE. The chairman of a committee is not a proper agent of the IEEE. For WMF purposes, IEEE would need to issue a release through WP:OTRS. Glrx (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Vincent Lefèvre says yes, David Hough says yes, but you still say no? Vincent Lefèvre also restored many links that I removed, as the linked-to pages had obvious copyright notices. Thanks. Gah4 (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gah4:

Linking to a draft is an absolutely clear copylink violation. Read the talk page section, go to the draft, read its copyright notice, and parse the limited publication right. Members of the committee only have a limited right to publish to further the development of the standard. The public is not involved in that development. Nowhere does the notice give the committee an unlimited right to publish the draft.

What copyright authority does Hough have? Does he have a release from the IEEE that goes beyond the limited right to publish stated in the draft? Until Hough has that, Hough has nothing. Same for Lefèvre; his doubt that he signed a release means nothing. Lefèvre certainly had the opportunity to read the copyright notice on the draft; why does he think he can ignore it now? And the draft is not just his work, but the work of many. Why does Lefèvre think he can publish the work of others without their permission? The drafts and the standard are works for hire for the benefit of the IEEE. It is the IEEE's copyright. When I contributed some text to a W3C standard, the contribution had to be vetted as copyright free. W3C has the reverse problem: they do not want a contributor raising a copyright issue.

Your removals of the further reading citations in the article shows a clear misunderstanding of WP:COPYLINK. A citation can NEVER be a copylink violation. Text that says Herbert Author, "Random Thoughts on Nothingness", IEEE Journal Vol 13 Number 2 pages 2-13 does not copy any original text, so it is not a copyright violation. Publishers want others to point to the works that they publish. Only the link/URL portion of such a citation can be a copylink violation. The cited works were all relevant to the article; you should only have deleted the URL parameters if you believed there were copylink violations. Removing the entire citation is WP:POINTy. I would have reverted the deletions if Lefèvre had not beat me to it. Furthermore, none of the links/URLs in the citations are apparent copylink violations. Most JOURNALs allow authors the right to republish the journal articles they authored on websites that the authors control. There's even a WP 'bot that looks for such free copies and inserts links to them in citation templates. That republication right only applies to the authors and websites under their control; it does not mean that somebody else can copy the journal article and publish it on their website. WP editors have a duty to ask whether a copy of an article on a website does not violate the copyright. For many significant journal articles, one can search and find a copy of it somewhere on the Internet. Unfortunately, many of those copies are copyright violations. A professor might post a copy of a significant paper on a course website for the use of his class; making that copy available to the general public is a copyright violation. There is not a similar, common, republication right for non-journal articles such as books and reports. If I write a book, the publisher usually does not let me post a PDF of that book on my website. If a free PDF were available, then few people would buy the book.

Glrx (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The ones in Further reading that I deleted have just as clear a copyright notice as the draft IEEE 754. (Did you look at them?) It seems that David Hough, the chair and presumably more or less the author, has a web site under his control. You say: WP editors have a duty to ask whether a copy of an article on a website does not violate the copyright. I asked. Even more, he replied. (Many don't.) I also asked Kahan, but he hasn't replied yet. I suppose I could ask for a signed, notarized statement saying that we are allowed to download them, but I don't think he would be too happy with that, and I don't know where I would put the statement. (It would be more fun to have one from Kahan, though.) I suppose IEEE could sue David Hough for posting the drafts on a public web site, but they don't seem to have done that for many years now. Gah4 (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't run into WP:POINT before, but it probably applies. I did check, though, that the pages have a clear copyright notice, just as clear as the drafts. As you note, they intend people to copy (view) them, yet copyright them, anyway, and make that clearly obvious. Lefèvre didn't think that I should ask for a signed, notarized statement. Gah4 (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Where are we on this one? I still didn't hear from Kahan, who seems to be retired and rarely answering email. Gah4 (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a copy of the legal agreement between IEEE and 754WG? It seems from your posts and edits, that you know the legal status of various documents from 754WG. Gah4 (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

This issue was resolved for WP almost nine years ago. The legal status is clear on the face of the draft with the IEEE copyright statement, something that you apparently have not bothered to read or for reasons that are beyond me choose to ignore. The 754WG does not have permission to publish its drafts to the general public. Glrx (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Aftermath: Maybe it is unrelated, but after all the communication with the principals, the ungated drafts were removed from the website. Glrx (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Precious

font and equation

Thank you for quality articles, such as Ellen Hildreth, Leeson's equation, Hershey fonts and Wavetek, fighting their tagging, based on scientific knowledge, for images and diagrams, for dealing with cryptography, for a rich sandbox, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cartridge (firearms), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annealing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

"Fixed in the next release." Glrx (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thank you very much for the immediate attention and solution to Wikipedia:SVG_help#SVG_gradient_is_applied_after_transform, Glrx. Much appreciated! cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 05:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Richard F. Lyon

I'm not saying I disagree with the fact that the picture of Richard F. Lyon shouldn't include a harp, but the picture of the person really is not particularly flattering nor is it up to date, being from 2007. The picture of him and his harp is much newer. For now, I have added a caption to the photo stating the age of the photo. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 19:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The original image isn't great, but it does a much better job of showing the subject matter.

The harp pix is much inferior. I do not see recent as a requirement. The harp is a distraction and unrelated to Lyon's work; it is not like a picture of Richard Feynman and his Feynman diagram-decorated van. Lyon also is a very small percentage of the photo; much of his face is dark, his head is tilted forward, and his glasses are covering part of his eyes.

Glrx (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

• 
  the original picture
• 
  the harp picture

I agree that the picture isn't good, but I do think the picture of him with the harp has him looking better (i.e., he looks much healthier and it's a much more flattering picture). Maybe a better solution is to ping him and ask him to take a new portrait if he wants it. @Dicklyon: See above. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 02:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary-precision arithmetic

Hi there, please share your view on this topic at Talk:Arbitrary-precision_arithmetic#Third_opinion_on_Big-O-Notation_/_Usage_of_Arbitrary-precision_arithmetic. Thank you! --Cerotidinon (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. Glrx (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

About the Bubble sort page

Hello Glrx,

I noticed that you reverted two times my edits on Bubble sort, however, I made them in a honest manner and I think they are worth be included in Wikipedia. That is why I created a section on Talk:Bubble_sort to discuss that issue. Thus, I would like to friendly invite you to visit that section and add your comments there.

Thank you very much and have a good day.

--Lp.vitor (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)