User:JWSchmidt/Talk from 2003 and 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This (below) is an archive of old talk for User:JWSchmidt.--JWSchmidt 16:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

1 Talk for the year 2003
2 Talk for the year 2004

[edit] Talk for the year 2003

[edit] Watching for copyright violation

It is standard practice if we see a new user making a significant contribution to copy some of their text into google to see whether they are simply copying stuff off of some other persons webpage into wikipedia which would be a copyright violation. I honestly don't quite know how we authenticate that you (JWSchmidt) are also the author of that webpage (I'm also somewhat new). I'll ask on the wikipedia:village pump which is our page for asking questions that everyone can see and answer. --snoyes 20:47 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

I took the liberty of fixing it for now; the procedure for doing that is listed at [1]. - Hephaestos 20:48 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

I also think that we can work on the assumption that JWSchmidt is indeed also the author of the webpage, but some time in the future there will be a case where it is not so clear - the best solution is probably for an admin to request an email from an email address listed on the webpage. Oh well. --snoyes 20:51 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

It looks like your text is back up, now that you explained that you were the author of the website it was taken from. Welcome to Wikipedia. --Infrogmation

Hi, JW. If you really do claim ownership of the information, could you put a statement on Talk:Elbow Room? Please be aware that there is nothing to guarantee that your work will stay the same. -- Zoe

[edit] Everything I wrote for my GeoCities website can be used for Wikipedia

Thanks snoyes, Hephaestos, Infrogmation for getting the material I posted to Elbow Room back online. I tried putting this statement at the bottom on my GeoCities root page (http://www.geocities.com/mindbrainsoul/index.html):
Wikipedia note: this website is owned by Wikipedia user "JWSchmidt". Any web pages that I wrote and posted here can be shared on Wikipedia. Note: there are some web pages on this website that contain material from other authors (this is always indicated).

I hope that indicates to everyone at Wikipedia that it is okay for my material at my GeoCities website to be used at Wikipedia.

Thanks also to Zoe, for keeping a good eye on copyright issues. Not only is it important to Wikipedia from a legal standpoint, but it keeps people's work from being used without permission, which is a service in itself.

I recently got an email telling me my Geocities cite (which I haven't updated in years) will be deleted if I don't update it soon (which I won't, and for personal reasons feel "good riddance of it"), so it wasn't surprising to me to see material being transferred. Hephaestos

[edit] Add more content than just a link

Hey, JW, Wikipedia is not a "mere collections of external links". If you're creating articles, you really need to add more content than just a link. -- Zoe

I agree. Personally, I have a limited amount of time in each day. Sometimes I have to start something on one day and get back to later. JWSchmidt 02:27 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Talk for the year 2004

[edit] Mitosis images

Howdy. I've nominated your diagram Image:Three cell growth types.png on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. I don't suppose you'd care to factor out two versions for the mitosis and meiosis pages too? Concidentally, I've had a request in for just this diagram on Wikipedia:Requested pictures#Biology for ages, so you've made my day. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:17, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I saw the need for images on the mitosis and meiosis pages. I have been slowly building up to the point where I can take on that task. I figured it was a good idea for me to get some practice "off the beaten path" in the "cell growth" page before making too much of a mess in those busier pages. I did put an image in the Anaphase section of the mitosis page. I am torn between trying to make the diagrams somewhat realistic and making them more like a cartoon. I have no training as an artist, so I tend to botch these things. Suggestions are welcome, particularly before I put too much time into it. Also after, when you spot errors. JWSchmidt 03:00, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The anaphase one is great also. If that's what you mean by "somewhat realistic" then I think that's ideal - it's still schematic enough so one can figure out what's going on, but it doesn't look like the usual "attack of the stickmen" drawings all the textbooks love. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:23, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The chromosomes in the Anaphase diagram were "lifted" out of an actual microscopy image. Some text books (example, nice movie in Figure 19-35) show both diagrams and microscopy for illustration of mitosis. I think I need bigger kinetochores. JWSchmidt 03:55, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's a rather clever approach (I think, by the way, that you should add that interesting information to the :Image: page itself). If you can pull off the hybrid approach (and be both partly naturalistic without destroying the clarity of exposition) then that would prove to be a valuable and novel addition to the article. I can't wait! -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:23, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, you have to wait, because until I feel like I have a sensible plan for how to make the diagrams, I am not going to be posting new diagrams to Wikipedia articles. One thing I am wondering about is the possible use of a navigation tool such as that at the bottom of the Cell biology page. If all of the phases of mitosis are going to have their own Wikipedia pages, then all those pages could be organized by a dedicated navigation box. The mitosis page might have an overview of the entire process, but details would go on the pages for each phase of mitosis. JWSchmidt 13:22, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Developmental biology

Hi John. I look forward to working with you on morphogenesis. It looks like it is just the two of us right now... but we should see if anyone else gets involved. Just so you know, I am working on a article for Drosophila embryogenesis. I also hope to write articles about Chick, Frog, Mouse, and Zebrafish embryogenesis (I have an exam on this in about a week). I should have some of those up within the next couple of weeks and they should provide a good complement to morphogenesis. AdamRetchless 02:49, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am starting out by trying to salvage what was already on the page while at the same time making room for the future addition new examples of morphogenesis. I plan to add an example for the role of cell adhesion proteins in morphogenesis. I am still wondering how to integrate basic material about biology topics that should be on Wikipedia with additional material that might be better suited for a textbook available at Wikibooks. JWSchmidt 13:22, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Physics and Math

Hello. I got your message on my talk page, but I have been very busy with studies, so only now I've got time to answer. That's right, studies - I'm not a physicist yet, but I'm studying physics (as stated on my personal page). So, I don't know if I can be very useful on that page; however, I'll help on what I can help.
Thanks for your message. --Fibonacci 02:31, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer of help. Maybe you know how to access physics journal articles. Is an article such as:

A. M. Polyakov, Quantum geometry of bosonic strings, Phys. Lett. B103 (1981), 207.

available in some online database? JWSchmidt 02:59, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See Talk:Why 10 dimensions. JWSchmidt 03:59, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Try looking in http://www.arxiv.org/. --Fibonacci

I tried a title search for "Quantum geometry of bosonic strings" and got: No matches were found for your search ti=(strings AND (bosonic AND (of AND (Quantum AND geometry))))

It looks like that database only goes back to 1991. JWSchmidt 15:18, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, it's my only source. I'll see if I can find it. --Fibonacci 01:52, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Hendrik Schön

Oops! Maybe I should read articles before I add things to them. Thanks for cleaning up after me. moink 00:00, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] WikiDoc

Hi, I'm trying to get some medically inclined folks to join a project to resuscitate the Medicine side of Wikipedia. Some info can be found on the temporary page WikiDoc. Please drop a line on my Talk Page if you feel like it. JFW | T@lk 01:36, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi JWSchmidt, I've recently been creating some stuff on thiazolidinediones, PPAR etc. as part of a personal fascination. I also wrote most of metformin. Would you have the time to skim over those for factual errors and other embarrasing things? Would be grateful. JFW | T@lk 22:12, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I will take a look at those pages later today. JWSchmidt 15:07, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Is WikiDoc moving?

Please follow this link for some information.
JFW | T@lk 12:34, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Information Habitat

A quick thanks for your supportive message re wiki project and meta-wiki - I haven't time no to follow the links, but your suggestion eems like it may be a great direction to turn. I will not be active on wikipedia much - if at all today - as I leave in about half an hour to give a talk on information ecology at Yale Forestry School this afternoon. User:Information Habitat

The alternative locations I suggested ( this Wikibooks project and this meta-wiki location) are both highly experimental. I think you could have a strong positive influence on defining the character of either (or both). Moving to one of these projects may seem like being sent to Siberia, but I think there is no point in trying to expand the scope of Wikipedia. It is the nature of wiki that new wiki projects split off from old wiki projects. JWSchmidt 15:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Problem

Hello, I stumbled across Image:Three_cell_growth_types.png , and noticed it was licenced under the CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence.

It's great that you made the image, and it's even greater that you licenced it under this particular CC licence. Unfortuantely the non-commercial clause you have there is incompatible with the GNU Free Documentation licence (see section 2) . So it turns out it's not actually possible to use that image on wikipedia as it stands :-( . Would you be willing to change the CC licence to one without a non-commercial clause, so it could still be used? Thank you very much for your time! Kim Bruning 09:51, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm alternately, you could dual licence it and keep the CC licence on it.

That ought to do it, but do note that IANAL, so TINLA. :-)

Kim Bruning 10:06, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In fact, you can use a similar procedure on images and on websites which you choose to add to wikipedia. Note that the GNU FDL is not really the greatest fit for images, but that's what wikipedia is using right now. I'd try to find out if anything better exists sometime. Kim Bruning 10:11, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on this issue. It is my understanding that when I upload (to Wikipedia) an image that I made, it automatically is licensed to Wikipedia under the GNU Free Documentation license. However, I am not an expert on such legal issues. Please see this (hopefully) clarifying statement. JWSchmidt 14:47, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay, well I took it to irc today, and there's quite some controversy. As long as you're as clear as you are, there shouldn't be too much trouble. Sorry about all this, I think some people need to do some talking. I agree with your view on this. :-) Thank you very much for taking the time! Kim Bruning 17:28, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the IRC. Do you have a log? JWSchmidt 18:44, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Put it on email, fwiw! :-) Kim Bruning 19:27, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[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:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

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:

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:

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] Unverified image

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

Image:Duckrabbit.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}}:

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Subject to disclaimers.

if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}}

This tag should not be used. Instead, use either one of the more specific tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free or {{non-free fair use in|article name}}.

This work is copyrighted and has not been released under a free content license. It does not fall into one of the blanket fair use categories listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images or Wikipedia:Non-free content#Audio_clips. However, it is believed that the use of this work:

To illustrate the object in question
Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation ([2]),

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Copyrights.

To the uploader: This tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed fair use rationale.

if you claim fair use, and so on.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the image from, and I'll tag it for you. Thanks so much. Denni ☯ 04:23, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at Wikipedia:Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

As I recall, about two years ago I was doing a presentation about Wittgenstein and I found a simple duckrabbit image on the internet. As I recall, that original duckrabbit was rather plain, I think it was just a black and white line drawing, so I used it as a model for the purple duckrabbit that I made using PhotoShop. I think the idea of a duckrabbit goes back over 50 years and is probably in the public domain. JWSchmidt 04:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This (above) is an archive of old talk for User:JWSchmidt.--JWSchmidt 16:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)