User talk:Glogger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Personal safety, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Personal safety. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Museumfreak 04:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Sousveillance Resources

hmm, IWIS 2004 looks like it was interesting. are any notes/recordings from it available? +sj+ 21:26, 2004 Apr 24 (UTC) [who desperately needs more permanent tools to wear]

There's another sousveillance workshop at ACMMM 2004; the published version of my opening keynote address will be online soon hopefully (acm digital library; hopefully also in some more free format as well). Also you might find my book, http://wearcam.org/books.htm of interest, as well as the eyetap website.Glogger 15:04, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Hello, and Welcome to Wikipedia! You seem to be getting along fine already, but since no-one else has, I thought I'd just drop you a quick note, and point you to some information you might find helpful:

Thanks for the information. There's alot of good information there about writing Wikipedia articles, but I also find it's a bit like learning how to swim --- you can't learn how to swim without getting wet, so I'm actually learning alot about writing articles by actually writing articles.

I'd also really appreciate it if some of you who are more experienced could point out where I've gone wrong, or could point out specific areas where I could write better, etc.. The manual of style, etc., is very informative, but also I hope that I can internalize these ideas through actual writing of articles, and through constructive criticism and useful feedback from that writing.

Alot of times I write an article and it later just says "this article needs to be wikified" but there's not a specific diagnostic. I wonder if it's possible to get some specific error messages that point to what makes it lack being wiki.Glogger 15:04, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In short, I hope you'll like the site enough to stay and contribute plenty in the future. - IMSoP 12:08, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--- Good evening. I wanted to follow up on your comment on the inclusion of newcomers and anonymous contributors to policy debates (such as VfD).

  • You said that you do not log in more often because you are using a PocketPC. I almost never have to do anything to log in to Wikipedia. I check the box to "remember me across sessions". Does a PocketPC not support the cookies necessary to make that work? I'm not familiar with PocketPCs but that limitation surprises me.

Alot of this has to do with short link-times, and short attention spans, e.g. erratic wireless and other things going on. Thus the best way I find to make use of short 1 or 2 minute attention spans (while walking down a city block before I get to the next street to cross, for example, that would require attention to avoid being run over by a truck), is to not login, e.g. just to make a short contribution, and keep going. Suppose I come across a transformer on a pole, and then I say to myself, "that would make a great Wikipedia entry", so I shoot, send, write, annotate, and then my browser crashes, or then I have to stop because something in the environment commands my attention.

My browser crashes alot because it's not a stable computing platform at this time, so the mean-time-between-crashes is short, thus logging in represents maybe 10% to 20% of the uptime.Glogger 15:04, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Most of Wikipedia is based on the assumption that reader/editors are acting in good faith and that "credit" for contributions is unnecessary. As we discussed before, the one exception is during participation in policy debates. A few early (and very hostile) experiences with ballot-stuffing led the community to decide to reduce the value of anonymous votes. Subsequent misuse (ballot-stuffing through sockpuppets) has led the community to adopt a second filter that votes from brand-new contributors are suspect. They are granted less weight than the votes of long-time contributors. Reading your comments, I believe you to be a balanced and rational contributor - exactly the kind of person that we need contributing to these debates. I ask you to continue to contribute (preferably logged on if you can find a way to do that more easily). Since you seem to know him, can you please ask User:jasonnolan to do the same?
  • You also expressed concern about the use of Wikipedia as a "definitive source". At times, I share your concern, though for different reasons.
    • I am not particularly worried that a referenced article will be deleted. Chaotic as it appears, I've watched the deletion process for some time now and it is remarkably adept at sorting the good articles from the true junk. Verifiable encyclopedic content is almost never lost. There are two factors that help us reach those conclusions: First, the decision to delete an article is considered an extreme action. A simple majority is insufficient. Second, a surprising number of people invest significant time investigating and thinking about recommendations before voting. If an article can possibly be saved, people do it. For all the emotional rhetoric on the Vfd page, in my opinion, the decisions are based on logic and evidence.
    • I have greater concerns about using Wikipedia as a "definitive source" when the content is functionally unverifiable. Some examples:
      • Someone recently posted an article containing nothing but the first 10,000 digits of Pi. In the third line of digits, someone else changed a 3 to a 4. Was that a real correction or was it random vandalism? There is no way for an average user to know and very low probability that an informed user will come back often enough to track and revert the vandalism. I believe we are better off without those kinds of articles.
      • Someone submitted an article on a housing project in India (if memory serves) with 88 inhabitants. Can the article be functionally verified? Assuming 50% of the world is web-enabled and that 2% of those participate in Wikipedia (both outrageously high estimates), that means that you may have only one contributor/editor who knows the "truth" about this housing project. At least one person on the VfD thread argued quite persuasively that no article should be trusted until it has some critical mass of author/editors - probably 5-6 volunteers making more than just copyedits. Without that level of review, the content can not be considered reliable. (By the way, the decision on this one was to keep.)
    • In contrast, the article about sousveillance has been (or at least, can be)edited and reviewed robustly. It has a critical mass of people who understand the term and can be trusted to keep track of the article. Changes that would fundamentally change the meaning of the article are easy to see and vandalism relatively easy to correct.

If you are still concerned about the stability of articles and of the Wikipedia, you might want to look at Wikipedia:replies (which used to be called "What our critics say about us"). It was my first introduction to the social conventions that make Wikipedia work. In fact, I found Wikipedia in the first place because that page was linked in Carl Shirkey's landmark article on social software. I hope that some of these thoughts can satisfy your concerns. Take care. Rossami 23:28, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's great to see peer review in action, and that our articles that are referenced in other published literature have survived the VfD. This goes a long way to building my confidence in Wikipedia as the standard reference for my students, etc..Glogger 15:04, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Eyetap question

"Picture of C. Aimone with an injection moulded eyetap " Is the Eyetap actually stink IN TO the eye? or the wearer can take easily it off at anytime?

That design has a 45deg diverter; you can see more pictures in http://wearcam.org/pictures.htm and also some of them are easily removed and others are attached permanently. The black injection molded one is meant for easy removal, suitable, for example, for unscheduled visits to urban beaches. The permanent type (metal frames version, for example) is not suitable for such use, and requires advance notice of going for a swim or otherwise remove it. However, the longterm adaptation question remains, e.g. if you adapt to good eyesight, it's hard to go back, and depending on correction, e.g. if mapping around blind spot, scotoma, or the like, reverse adaptation conditions may contraindict removal without gradual reversal of the "prescription". In this case, unscheduled swims are not possible because of the need for gradualization of the reversal of the "prescription".

If you really want to learn about electric eyeglasses, you may want to read the textbook on the topic, Intelligent Image Processing published by John Wiley and Sons.

[edit] Image:Sur-veillance-trafficcam-glog.jpg

I love your picure Image:Sur-veillance-trafficcam-glog.jpg. It captures the emotional element well, and it's pretty to boot (with the sunset). Thanks for uploading it. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 22:26, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I've taken many more such pictures and am continuing to look for images that capture the essence of (and sustain the epistimology for) everyday objects in the world around us. As a professor, part of my passion is coming up with new ways of teaching the concepts of the everyday world to my students, so I constantly capture lights, cameras, pole transformers, and other everyday things so we can attempt to understand how they work, and how they affect our society.Glogger 15:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ear fear

I questioned the page you created, Ear fear. Please respond on it's Talk page. Thanks! JesseW 01:00, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the question... I responded on the talk page. I welcome suggestions, thoughts, ideas, etc., anyone may have on how to rework this article, and also maybe it needs a more scholarly name, or a more descriptive name...


[edit] Beachwear

Some people have expressed concern about my Beachwear article; I would welcome comments on the article, and on how it could be improved. Perhaps some of the history of beachwear, as it came about with the invention of the railway, which made it possible for large numbers of people to vacation in coastal regions, etc..

[edit] cuircuit breaker

Image:Breaker3phase2a_proc.jpg what country is this from (i suspect its american but im not sure)?

I took the picture in Canada, in Toronto, on the table in my Dundas Street studio. The background is a table made of solar cells. I'm not sure what country the breaker itself is from, because it's from surplus equipment, of which origin I am uncertain. I do however see this kind of breaker in alot of equipment, such as, for example, the power distribution units of PDP 11 computers, made by Digital Equipment Corporation. These power distribution units can be wired single phase or three phase, and when wired single phase, they often still have the 3 pole braker but use the outer two breakers for each of the +- 120v "hots" and the middle one for the neutral, even though the neutral would not normally need to have a breaker in it.

For many minicomputers, and similar rack mount equipment, you can often find some kinf of rackmount power distribution unit that has breakers built into it, at a lesser amperage like 2, 3, 5, or 10 amps, so that it will "pop" before the main breaker does, and thus better protect the equipment it's hooked up to.

Some (all?) of your pictures of various breakers and things are listed at Wikipedia:Untagged_Images. It's be great if you could tag them with {{GFDL}} or some other suitable tag. Check out Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for a list of tags to use. The one with the Shared Experience License has me confused though, I don't know what would be a good tag, maybe a new tag could be created for that license? fbjon ^^ 4649 01:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apple image

I'm a little puzzled by Image:Cyborglog-of-eating-old-apple-d360.jpg. Sure looks like a plum to me, no matter how hard I look at it. You're not engaging in some friendly leg-pulling, are you? --jpgordon{gab} 23:58, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The fruits that grow on the tree have a core that has many seeds. A plum has only one big seed, usually. Maybe it's a cross breed between apple and plum? Some friends of ours identified it as "old apple" (some old kind of apple), but I'd welcome any thoughts you might have on it. I also have some pictures of seeds from it. It's among other apple trees at my parents' cottage, and they estimate it might be around 80 years old or so, and seems to be from a group of apple trees planted there. It tastes like apple; it tastes quite good actually. They're about the size of a plum (i.e. very small apples). Glogger 01:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Might be its own thing! The fun thing about fruit (apples, citrus, plums) is that when they grow from seed, they pretty much decide on their own what they want to be, regardless of what its parents were. Plant a lemon seed, you might or might not get a lemon. --jpgordon{gab} 02:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm hoping I can grow another tree of this fruit (I kept seeds from one). I thought unless something's grafted onto an existing tree, it should be possible to get the same tree by planting seeds from one of the fruits.

See also http://wearcam.org/christina/billru_cottage/d375.jpg

More pictures in http://wearcam.org/christina/billru_cottage/ (toward the end)

Hi Glogger - thanks for the note; I edited out the link as it was already missing (red link) when I was doing my edits on 4th October. Have you checked you got the title correct (maybe different capitalisaion Old Apple vs Old apple?)(these links will tell when I save this!). If not, then I've no idea what happened to the missing article, sorry.
As to its identity, it is definitely an apple; no plum in it (plums have stones, not pips). I always was a bit dubious about its name as a formal cultivar name; your extra info indicates it isn't. I can with reasonable confidence identify it as a chance seedling hybrid between an orchard apple and one of the several purple-foliage crabapple cultivars (this parent providing the red pigmentation), and so will most likely not have any formal cultivar name (unless a nurseryman has propagated and named it, which is unlikely). That leaves the question of what to do with it; as it isn't a named cultivar, it shouldn't be in the list of named cultivars, but it is an interesting pair of photos well worth keeping, I'll try and work some wording round them in the next day or two (unless you can beat me to it!).
To reproduce it reliably, you'll have to graft shoots from it onto another apple rootstock. The seeds, as jpgordon says, won't breed true. - MPF 18:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Here's a link to a crabapple which could be one of the parents to yours: Prairifire Crabapple And another possible: Red Baron Crabapple. There are many more similar ones. - MPF 18:23, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedic content

Hello. About suitable topics -- Wikipedia exists to document stuff that is already known. This excludes essays, research scientific or otherwise, advocacy for causes good or bad, inventions, discoveries, etc. So if the choice is to be engineering or philosophical speculations, it has to be engineering every time; Wikipedia simply isn't a forum for discussing implications of new technologies and social phenomena. -- Aside from essays, you've contributed more than a little bit of material which is directly self-promotional. You are doubtless well-known enough that you needn't edit Steve Mann, for example, and you certainly needn't post a self-portrait Image:Lightspace-wearcomp-lightcomb.jpg nor your original art works Image:Plumbingsurveillancelightvectorpainting.jpg, Image:Wearable-computational-photography.jpg. Then there are several neologisms which you have made up and given articles, such as lightspace, PhotoQuantity, comparametric equation, and of course eyetap, CyborgLog, and sousveillance. -- Since you asked, my advice to you is to stick strictly to established topics in which you play no role. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Hi Steve, a few days ago I saw the edit you left on my user page (Maneesh). Very classy indeed.

I was going to let it slide, but perhaps this is the correct forum to voice my opinion.

I am not qualified to really comment on what constitutes stuff that should be in wikipedia (maybe no one really is), but I do know self promotion and nonsense when I see it. In my view, you are using wikipedia as a tool to legitimize your own nutty lexicon, one need not look any further than you contribution history under Glogger or your presumed static IP for evidence of this. I believe that there is a rule about original research, and some of the articles that you have created are an obvious violation of that rule.

In addition to above cited articles, I advise others to take a look at the shamelessly self referential Computational photography (another non term BTW with photos of Steve, links to his books etc.) and sheer silliness like the addition to the page cement. An entire world of valid, well referenced (and widely used) scientific work that falls under HDRI already exists. I won’t even touch all this recent “Urban beach” baloney you’ve been stuffing. You seem to oft cite your own papers in your wikipedia entries…you are not the only person in the world who has published a scientific paper; and you certainly aren't the only one who has published one with relatively little impact (raising my hand). I don't feel that such papers (or the few others that directly cite yours) should be cited in an encyclopedia and really shouldn’t be attributed as “seminal”. If I sound more critical than I should be, it is because I have worked with Steve and I understand his attempts in obfuscating remarkably trivial things. If a comparametric equation is such a notable term in mathematics, why can’t I find it in Mathworld?

If you are looking for advice on improving your writing style, many of your pages suffer from akward, misplaced, over-description, not suitable for an encyclopedia like:


"capture precious moments like the birth of a newborn…" sousveillance, the birth of a new born is is a very subjective moment, it is not by necessity "precious"; this sounds more like a Kodak commercial than an encyclopedia.


"An ornamental fountain in Napier, New Zealand. This image is a long-exposure night photograph taken over the course of 4-8 seconds." Fountain, why should the reader care about the exposure time of a photo? She came to the article to learn about fountains!


And you seem to make peculiar specific reference to your acquaintances, content that is not terribly neutral or relevant:


"C. Aimone with a one-eyed injection-moulded EyeTap"

"Optometrist Mel Rapp, of Rapp Optical, is also working on fitting EyeTaps to specific individuals" Eyetap

"Dr. Stefanos Pantagis, a New York physician, is largely responsible for bringing the concepts, ideas, and images of sousveillance to New York City…" Sousveillance

These are not notable people, it is silly to refer to them by name; people don’t come to an encyclopedia to fid out you’ve asked some optometerist to screw around with plastic molds. Where would Wikipedia be if we decided to update it with any and all information about our own personal garage projects?

If this comes across like I have an axe to grind, maybe I do, but I cannot stand it when "academicians" try to get away with this kind of buzzword based science. From one point of view, it doesn’t really matter, since these articles are of little relevance and it is not likely they will be widely read/referenced outside of Steve Mann’s own graduate students.

My intent is to show that I am not just criticizing someone else’s writing style, but that Steve is blatantly trying use Wikipedia, not to record an account of notable information, but trying to influence the notability of specific information, which he has a biased self interest in doing (vanity, sales of his books etc.).

What to do about it? Perhaps implement a way so that users can vote on tarring-and-feathering other users? Well I suppose that would be a little harsh, but at least we can all voice our opinions here, so maybe writing this is all I should do.

I will never put any of Steve’s articles up for VfD or vote on them, as I have clearly illustrated my bias. There, I am done now, and I shall never speak on this or anything Mann related again. Best of luck to you. If anyone can think of a good quote from “Homer’s Enemy”, please put it here.Maneesh 03:28, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Image:Threephase-transformer218p.jpg

you uploaded this image and you say you gave wikipedia permission to use it but you have not tagged it to say exactly which terms you are giving that permission under

  • Thanks for letting me know. I have now added licensing information.

[edit] Breakerpanel-level4-inside-view135dl.jpg

can you answer the question i made on this images talk page?

  • hopefully i've answered your question (see talk page for this image)

[edit] please tag your images

None of the images i have seen from you have had copyright tags

lack of copyright tags will prevent inclusion in the DVD of wikipedia if and when it is released and may also be removed from wikipedia itself. It seems this may even be happening already see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images

Thanks for letting me know. I think I've now fixed all of them. If you know of a simple way to search for all the images that I've contributed that still remain of unknown license, please let me know so I can fix any that are still not taken care of.

whilst i see you have added blocks describing the licenseing you have not added any of the wikipedia image tags. Plugwash

any suggestions you might have for image tags would be welcome. I tried, for example, in to include a contitional copyright tag with insertion of the license information; let me know if this works ok.
you should license them as {{gfdl}}. Since they are your copyright, and you uploaded them using the upload file form, they are kind of already under the GFDL. But its better to have them tagged as such. You can have your photos under more the one license at once.--Eean 23:10, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

well the eyetap license is currently not known/approved by wikipedia this leaves serveal possibilities

   1:rerelase your images under a license wikipedia approves of
   2:persuade wikipedia to approve the eyetap license for images
   3:maintain the status quo risk having your images deleted in future
   4:remove your images from wikipedia

im not sure about using the copyrightfreeuseproviding in the way you have done im going to try and contact some higher ups about it

afaict wikipedia prefers images to be licensed under the GFDL. many people also release thier images under one of the creative commons licenses Plugwash 23:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please confirm that you know that you are releasing the images you've uploaded under the GFDL as well as any other licenses you wish to use (the upload form grants that license, at least, if the uploader is the copyright holder and it's for an encyclopedia article rather than a user page). If you object to using the GFDL as one of your licenses, please say so and refrain from uploading any more images for which you are the copyright holder unlesss you're using them only outside the encyclopedia article space. Then we'll arrange to remove the images used in articles, to avoid breaching your desire not to use the GFDL license - it beats trying to enforce the upload agreement on a licensor who didn't really want to use it.:) Basically, you already agreed, but rather than arguing aobut it, we'll make it easy to back out if you want to.
Please note also that all of your other contributions to articles are also agreed to be released under the GFDL (unless you make them public domain). It's definitely not a problem to use lots of licenses if you wish, just make the GFDL one of them. Jamesday 23:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

if any sysops are reading this could you use sql to get a list of images glogger has uploaded so that when a desicion is reached they can all be dealt with at once.Plugwash 03:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to come up with a license that's suitable for images. GFDL seems quite good, overall, but I think it was mainly defined for documentation. Although we could broaden the scope of documentation to include images (I guess if we thought of it as documentary film making, or documentary practice), but I usually think of documentation as something like for a software manual, or the like. I'd welcome comments, thoughts, ideas, etc., that anyone has on the SEL (http://eyetap.org/sel.txt) and if that's acceptable to Wikipedia. Also, it's hard to define source code for images, other than maybe a full resolution source image, beyond the 100k Wikipedia file size restriction, in case someone wants to do different processing on the image, they can get the original source image to do the processing on.
If we do release under multiple licenses do they all need to be Wikipedia approved or can we also release under at least one that is, and some that are not, i.e. GFDL + SEL, or the like?
Also, if GFDL is implicit in image upload, I wonder if the upload script should be rewritten so that it automatically puts in some GFDL tag, to which a person can add another license tag. (glogger)

by putting multiple licenses on something you are giving someone permission to use it under the terms of *any* of those licenses. Therefore releasing under additional licenses is fine as long as at least one is approved by wikipedia.

as for changing the upload script thats a hard one if you did something like that or had a must select check box then an upload by those gits who copy material off other sites without permission would be tagged. By leaving the uploads of those who blatently disregard procedure untagged they can be found and dealt with later. If a choice was forced at the time then many would just pick one at random even though the file was not thiers to relase under those terms in the first place.

I agree the gfdl is not ideal for images. However there is a distinct advantage especially in terms of content reuse to having images under the same license as the main body of wikipedia. Which is why it is preffered to use the GFDL for images here Plugwash 00:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to set them all to GFDL, if that is what seems to be the best thing? You mentioned it may be possible to use sql to get a list of images from a particular user. (glogger)

yes a list of images for a user can be retrived with sql unfortunately an admin has to do it Plugwash 05:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) unfortunately it would seem that sql access is disabled for admins atm so a developer would have to do it Plugwash 05:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) ok i managed to get a list with creative use of the user contribs page (hint: it allows up to 5000 in one page if you tell it to in the url) and use of grep on the output (plus a tiny bit of manual editing to make links work) result is at http://www.umist.ac.uk/personal/student/Peter.Green/gloggerimagecontribs.html Plugwash 05:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Um...

Hi Steve. GTTP: What the heck is a lightvector? ;) -==SV 03:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • A vector constructed from the quantity of light, usually captured in a 2 dimensional array, but arranged in a single vector (one dimension) consistently for an ensemble that can form part of a vectorspace.

[edit] 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:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" 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 [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". 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)

  • Is there a simple way to automate insertion of licenses, e.g. to put a certain license message into all or most of a long list of image files, etc.?
    • you may be able to find a user with a bot who will do it for you. Failing that i find opening the pages in tabs and then closing the tabs as i deal with each page (using the clipboard for the text to insert and not bothering with edit reasons) to be a pretty fast technique as long as wikipedia is running at a reasonable speed (this is how i do disambiguation). Plugwash 19:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image use status uncertain

Hi. Your Image:Threephase-transformer218p.jpg has been sitting listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images for a good while. We're not sure of the best thing to do with it. The easiest way to resolve it and clearly allow Wikipedia to use the image would be for you to tag it as released under a licence or status which Wikipedia commonly uses, such as GFDL, or if you prefer PD-self. If you don't wish to list the image under those options, it might help if you'd state so and why. Thanks for your attention, -- Infrogmation 20:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I put it under GFDL.

I'll try to do the others, when Wikipedia's responding fast (right now there's sometimes a slow response).

Thanks! Cheers, -- Infrogmation 06:25, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Done... thanks for letting me know about the problem. Glogger 05:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging redux

While participating in the Wikipedia:Untagged Images project, I seem to have come across a batch of untagged images of yours, specifically:

You might want to add the GFDL tag to those. --Calton 16:18, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done... thanks for letting me know Glogger 04:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sousveillance-necklace.jpg

Hi Glogger,

I noticed your Image:Sousveillance-necklace.jpg. You're the person who took that picture, right? If so, would you mind uploading the high-resolution version from [1]?

Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 19:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When I try to load the full resolution image, I get a warning that it's more than 100k file size. Actually the image is 871434 bytes (more than eight times the recommended maximum).

Should I upload a more compressed version (if I GIMP it to recompress to JPEG quality 53, I can get it to just under 100k). Is there a standard procedure for uploading higher resolution images, e.g. is it better to violate the 100k suggested limit, or is it better to downsample the image, or is it better to compress it more severely but keep the high pixel count? Glogger 05:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Fourierop rows and cols.png

The image you uploaded Image:Fourierop rows and cols.png has been marked for deletion on WP:IFD. RedWolf 04:04, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • I put the licensing information to GFDL; let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Glogger 07:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Breaker3phase2a proc.jpg

On the image description page, you say, "I give permission to Wikipedia, for license to use this image." Do you license this image under the GNU Free Documentation License? This is the same license as all the articles are licensed under. --Ellmist 05:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • inserted GFDL; thanks for letting me know.Glogger 16:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dofficer-console-mens-side.jpg

This image, which you uploaded, has been listed on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Samaritan 05:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)Glogger 16:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • thanks for letting me know (i've commented on that page as well)

[edit] Another image

Image:Breakerpanel-mechroom136rp.jpg, could you changes the licence on this one too please. --nixie 05:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

  • GFDL now; thanks for letting me know Glogger 06:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

And also Image:Lightspace-wearcomp-lightcomb.jpg? --Laura Scudder | Talk 22:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • done; thanks for letting me know Glogger 6 July 2005 13:30 (UTC)

[edit] Dundas Square

In recognition of his in-depth and interesting writing and photographic contributions, Glogger is awarded this Barnstar (KC)
In recognition of his in-depth and interesting writing and photographic contributions, Glogger is awarded this Barnstar (KC)

Good day Glogger. I happened across the article Dundas Square today anticipating an ordinary article on where it is, what happens there, and its history only to be blown away by the interesting and in-depth information there. I learned several things I did not know about it. It appears from the history that you are largely responsible for those portions of the expansion so I wanted to thank you personally. Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the kind words and the encouragement. I look forward to writing more for Wikipedia... Glogger 03:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Breaker3phase2a proc.jpg

It appears that either you forgot to remove the unknown tag when adding the gfdl tag and because of that it was deleted by mistake as part of the recent action against images marked as unknown. Any chance you could re-upload it? Plugwash 20:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC) I've now uploaded the image again; thanks for letting me know of the problem. Glogger 01:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 02:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mediated-reality-easel.jpg

When you uploaded Image:Mediated-reality-easel.jpg, your summary said that you "license this picture for use in Wikipedia". However, images to be used in Wikipedia should be released under a free license such as the GFDL; giving only Wikipedia permission to use it isn't enough. It must be free for modification, redistribution, and sale by anyone, with the only permissible restrictions being attribution and release of any modifications/incorporations of it under the safe terms (that being a very rough summary of the GFDL, you can read the actual license if you like). I've tagged it as {{GFDL-presumed}}, but would you care to clarify? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for letting me know. I've corrected this by adding GFDL-self and GFDL (not sure if it should be stated in first person as per GFDL-self or third person as per GFDL, and also not sure if i should remove other GFDL-presumed, etc., or if it's ok to have multiple licenses on the same image).Glogger 00:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EyeTap pictures

Hi Glogger,

I have moved your two Eyetap pictures to the Commons, so they could be used in other Wikipedias as well (I am currently translating your Eyetap article to German). If you could please take a brief look at the pictures and verify that the copyright information and descriptions are appropriate: commons:Image:Thermal_eyetap.png and commons:Image:Aimoneyetap.jpg. Cheers, --Volty 23:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I had both those images as GFDL; the description looks fine. Looking forward to seeing the translations.

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Beneath the watchful eyes.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Beneath the watchful eyes.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Liftarn 13:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It would be nice to see the discussion on why this image was deleted. Since the image is deleted, perhaps the discussion is also deleted??? Perhaps you know of how to get to an archive of the discussion.

[edit] Image:Pocket sampled synthesizer dsc210q.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Pocket sampled synthesizer dsc210q.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.

  • I've added my comments there, as suggested. Thanks for letting me knowGlogger 05:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:B031007bc.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:B031007bc.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. Peter O. (Talk) 14:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Plumbingsurveillancelightvectorpainting.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Plumbingsurveillancelightvectorpainting.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. Peter O. (Talk) 14:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • In case the problem is one of licensing, I've added GFDL-self. Please let me know if I can be of any further help. Glogger 17:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It is acceptable to license your own work under two or more licenses. Thank you. Peter O. (Talk) 13:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Pocket sampled synthesizer dsc210q.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pocket sampled synthesizer dsc210q.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 23:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I've put GFDL-self. Thanks for letting me know. Glogger 17:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:B031007bc.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:B031007bc.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. Peter O. (Talk) 12:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wave-chirplet-wave-only.png

Do you have a higher-res or less posterized version of this image? — Omegatron 15:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • This image was generated with special purpose hardware that our research group built many years ago, for rendering 3d scenes in realtime. This screen grab is the same as the original resolution, being the upper left quadrant of the original image, linked to the page here. Using more modern technology, it would be possible to render this at greater resolution, but the limited resolution does help to make the 3d shape more visible (i.e. the limited number of dots...). Some improvement could be had by going back to the original image file, http://wearcam.org/wavechirpletc.gif which has no jpeg artifacts, but it is in an obsolete image file format which is no longer supported by most image editors or display programs, so perhaps this should be converted into a more modern lossless image compression format such as png. Glogger 16:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC) What we have in Wikipedia now is simply a conversion from the original to the png file format. To get a higher apparent resolution we could re-render the scene with more points, but then we would also loose the appearance of three-dimensionality, i.e. the limited number of data points we found helps make the three dimensionality more apparent, but of course alot more could be done using modern computing technology to make a better version. Glogger 16:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I just thought you might have an original version of better quality. If you don't, it would be better to just replot it. — Omegatron 16:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CyborgLog AFD

CyborgLog is having another AFD. If you could help and cite work which mentions cyborglogging and glogging specifically and isn't written by yourself you'd definately help the article meet requirements of WP:V and WP:RS to skeptics (I've already explained to them how it meets both of those policies). Currently the article only has 1 truly reliable secondary source which you haven't written yourself. It needs more. Essentially you have to demonstrate the notability of the word. Also the nominator of the AFD should've informed you of this AFD. --Quirex 19:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for letting me know about this. Unfortunately I was away for the holidays and didn't get a chance to cite the work that you mentioned. Presently a number of people have referenced the article, and unfortunately these citations will no longer link to the original article. Our main reference has been this Wikipedia article since more permanent academic articles are often behind registration or are otherwise less accessable. Given the potentially temporary nature of Wikipedia articles, we would welcome your suggestions, thoughts, and ideas on how to (or whether to) cite Wikipedia articles in other scholarly publications. Glogger 16:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/l/o/User_talk%7EGlogger_1616.html"