User talk:C-randles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, C-randles, 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! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Above is Wikipedia's standard welcome template. It contains a variety of links that you may find useful if you decide to stick around, and we all hope that you will. Dragons flight 17:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Images

I noticed you recently uploaded Image:CPView.JPG. Dealing correctly with images on Wikipedia can be one of the most difficult things to learn because of all the complexities of copyright law. Whenever an image is added to Wikipedia, it needs to recieve an image copyright tag in order to explain for future users why we believe this particular image is acceptable for use on Wikipedia. In this case, I have added {{software-screenshot}} to indicate that your image was created as a screenshot from a software program and hence likely to be fair use. It is also a good idea to provide in the image description a little information about where the image came from and who made it. (In this case, I presume you made it.) Don't worry you'll get the hang of it all. Dragons flight 00:34, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

I added a "cc-by" tag which seemed the closest to what I know. Further details/discussion on the image's discussion page. crandles 23:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cyclones

Hi. Thanks for drawing that to my attention. See my reply on my talk page (I don't know how you like to do these things, but I prefer to answer where the question was, so don't talk here talk there) and on the trop cyc page. William M. Connolley 19:34:18, 2005-09-05 (UTC).

ps: Go on, edit your user page, even if just to say boo! - you don't have to identify yourself if you don't want to. Its a good idea, because many people react badly to edits by "red users".

[edit] re: Carl Christensen

Thank you for the explanation. The article has been deleted now. Regards -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image

Can you give source for the image please.[1]--Pixel ;-) 22:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I took the image from http://www.climateprediction.net/project.php where it is called http://www.climateprediction.net/images/sci_images/ipcc_fig1-5.jpg so I believe it comes from an IPCC report (probably a figure named 1-5). So far I haven't actually found the exact image in an IPCC report - I tried to find it to see if there was a better quality image. I have now referenced a very similar image in an IPCC report. Hope that is sufficient.crandles 11:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Wikigrowthlogistic.PNG


Hi C-randles, have you seen the recent Wikipedia_talk:Modelling_Wikipedia's_growth#Logistic_growth_model and the picture of Gaussian growth? It is interesting that you name your image Wikigrowthlogistic.PNG HenkvD 11:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I had seen the talk which didn't seem to be improving the article though to me there seemed agreement that the growth was no longer exponential. So I decided to be bold. Assuming it is now linear growth seems a bit presumptuous. (The lines on the graph allow people to conclude that if they want but I am not forcing them to decide that.) Simply calling it logistic seemed a more general term than linear and that was what the discussion was about. crandles 12:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I find it hard to convice people that the number of articles in not an exponential graph any longer. Some say it is still exponential as on a logarithmic scale it gives a more or less straight line others call it sub-exponential growth. On de:wikipedia it is already for 3 year a constant growth of about 500 to 600 articles per day. See Image:Neue Artikel.png and Image:Meilensteine.png. HenkvD 14:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It should be much easier to convince people it is not exponential than it is to persuade them that it is logistic. Just calculate a best fit for steady growth and for exponential growth and see which is a better fit by calculation the least square errors. Suggesting logistic growth is probably not going to get agreement. You will get a better fit but that is only to be expected due to the higher number of degrees of freedom. With my edits I tried to leave a large number of options being possible without saying which one is to be preferred. (eg exponential, steady growth with or without annual cycles and with or without weekly cycles (7 day average selected to make these disappear) or logistic (in name of file).) crandles 15:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 AHS

Why are you creating a new "season INVEST history" section when all of the INVESTs have already been documented and archived in the respective month archives? – Chacor 12:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They probably are, but isn't a single summary easier to follow? Also helps you know which months archive to look at. The main point was I disagreed with removal of July invests from the talk page. I felt it more appropriate to not only restore but have a season record. If people disagree fine. crandles 12:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh now I realise we already have a July archive before end of July. Bit odd - but anyway self reverted. crandles 12:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah pretty much as soon as each INVEST dies after a few days it gets archived. – Chacor 12:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
95L was gone on 1 July but it was still on the page on 23rd July and July archive hadn't been created then. Anyway, where do I find the details of 91L? If it is missing from the monthly archieves is that a good reason for having an INVEST history summary page to prevent that happening? crandles 13:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
91L probably got lost in the hoopla around Andrea. The INVESTs are documented like that only the help in article-writing for storm history. Otherwise they serve no purpose (all storm discussion is at the Wikia, which is where you'd probably be able to find info on 91L). So there's no real need for having an INVEST history page. – Chacor 13:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climatologists category is incredibly bare

Being bare gives undue weight so consider working on:

User talk:C-randles/IPCC contributors

[edit] Image:CPView.JPG

I've noticed that this image has contradictory copyright tags - surely it can't be CC1.0 and a non-free screenshot? If it is non-free then it needs a fair use rationale. I know it's quite an old image now but since it's still in use it might be worth clarifying which of the tags is correct? Ta, Purgatorio 19:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the discussion page, I am sure I have seen something by the author saying images can be used provided they are attributed. However, I couldn't find it. I did ask on the development thread here but the only answer was not by the author here. I am not at all sure about tags; does this mean images that have to be attributed like this one should not have the non-free tag? crandles 23:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
That means they're not free (even if you find the permission, it would have to be emailed to permissions@wikimedia.org to get proper OTRS clearance). I have updated the image page to suit, however it does need a Fair Use Rationale for each page that it's on. Cheers! --Storkk (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CPView.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:CPView.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hope that rationale is sufficient. crandles (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)