User talk:JakeVortex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[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 1000 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)

[edit] Floating point page

The page floating point needs expert attention, and such experts are extremely rare. Based on your past contributions in this or related fields, I wonder if you could take a look. William Ackerman 22:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Cleanup on Automatically_Tuned_Linear_Algebra_Software

Thank you for the note. I added my comments to the ATLAS talk page. Rl 21:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Floating-point format(s)

Greetings. The problem I have with that sentence is that we say "common formats" and then "This format has been standardized ...". Should it be "These formats have been"? It's made more complicated by the fact that single and double are two "subformats" of what is really one "format class" of IEEE.

Yes, the number should agree, sorry I missed that. I think it would be clearest to treat these as multiple formats, and thus to use the plural.
I suspect there may be some notion that any Dyadic rational could be written in floating point notation, and if you consider that a format, it would be the union of all the radix two format (value sets). That said, it doesn't seem to me to be the most productive direction of discussion for this article.

I appreciate the good sense that you are providing to this page.

Happy to help

There's much more to be done in taking out the "musings on theoretical design" stuff.

Agreed. I keep trying to sit down and do a full edit, but I think I am going to need to work section by section to make headway. Never get enough of a block of time in one sitting.
I have precisely the same problem. William Ackerman 15:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I also want to make the article as free as possible from nebulous notions about what are "good" or "bad" or "meaningful" digits, etc. This is deterministic computer science; it's not our place to make guesses about what things mean. Accordingly, I'm not completely happy about the paragraph that we have both worked on: "... the original operands didn't have enough precision" and "... all of the digits of a computed result are meaningful". But I think we're going to have to live with that.

Hmm. I had a similar reaction. I was focusing on a different aspect of the example so tried to stay with the text where I could. We are right on the cusp of needing to point people to numerical analysis where such questions are natural. Yes, avoiding value laden language would be good. (But it will be hard to avoid talking about "errors", but in this case they are objects of study.

The page currently has a lot of material, put in by me, giving excruciating details of what all the bits mean in all circumstances. A number of people, including you, have objected to so much detail, insofar as it duplicates the IEEE page and the single/double precision pages. I now largely agree, and will cut down on all the details of gradual underflow, and what everything means when the exponent field is zero. I want to leave in the minimum necessary to understand the bits in the straightforward cases, that is, the current "computer representation" section. I think that's about as brief as we should go. I would like for people do be able to figure out what 3FFBB67AE8584CAA means without any additional mouse clicks, though perhaps with some difficulty.

Sounds like we are headed to consensus. Sorry about the rework, but I'm glad you are going to take a crack at it. I'll take a look at what you come up with.

I'd like to see the page's emphasis move more toward issues of what can go wrong in real-world programming situations and how one can minimize these problems. The current treatment (bottom third of the article) is still a complete mess. William Ackerman 15:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Good motivation for numerical analysis would be good. Have to keep an eye that we don't get too much overlap on that side. We should also make sure that the benefits of FP are clear.

[edit] Need help on Categories

What would be good Categories for my article Letter to Posterity that was written by Petrarch in 1372? --Doug talk 15:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attribution decisions in other blog-centric articles

Sorry for the delay in responding to your question; I had to search a little. The only one I could find was Kaycee Nicole, a blogger who established a huge internet following for her writing about living with cancer. Unfortunately, she turned out to be a hoax. The article is now attributed to the Snopes.com summary of her case (which is, in turn, sourced to news articles), rather than to quotes from her blog. Thanks for your attention to the Casey Serin article. Saranary 16:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Maybe somebody at Snopes will take an interest in IAFF. --Jake 17:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Dave English has pointed out that Casey is scheduled to appear on PBS Money Track and the Suze Orman show in the next few weeks. If he confirms details of his story in the shows, they will be a good resource for the article. 129.186.205.84 19:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics CotW

Hey Jake, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 22:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IEEE_754r/Annex_Z is obsolete?

Hello JakeVortex. This Annex Z proposal seems like it never made it into the draft. Do you have any further plans for this article? Otherwise deleting it seems like the right thing to do. EdJohnston 15:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is obsolete. Sorry I was away from editing there for a while. Jake 18:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Copyright violation in Caxton Associates

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Caxton Associates, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Caxton Associates is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Caxton Associates, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)