User talk:Glenn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot.
Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here.


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) 18:08, Dec 8 2004 (UTC)

[edit] lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:31, Jun 16 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lip sync error

Please revert and thus restore the article and engage in discussion on the talk page. There clearly is no consensus and the article is all of two days old. Benjiboi 14:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have now restored the article Lip sync error, though all of it's information is in audio to video synchronization. I was just trying to clean up the article mess about audio to video synchronization. It was full of repetitions. --Glenn (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Having duplicate info in all three might not be the best but we also can sort out what makes the most sense perhaps it's fine to have all three. Where are folks most likely to look for the information and where can it be summed up only. I think we agree that a summary and link can go on the lip sync article. Benjiboi 15:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False positive: Blue energy

Sorry, at first I thought it was vandalism. Have reverted my revert. Cheers, Poeloq (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Heat engines (was Template:Machine configurations)

Hi. I've just tried to spruce up this template and saw your name on its talk page; I'm no engine expert, so would appreciate your looking for anything spurious my ignorance has created. Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strange category title

Hi Glenn: This new category electrical energy gearing" troubles me, as I've never heard that exact phrase outside of the Wikipedia. Gearing in particular is an unfortunate word, in my opinion. Can you explain what the utility of this category is? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made a short description. It might be that a better phrase exist. With gearing I mean impedance change. E.g. in category:electrical energy gearing it is electrical impedance. I just thought that gearing would be a better word for it in broad sense. See movement advantage, mechanical advantage and gear ratio. (How do gears make life easier?) --Glenn (talk) 09:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Energy control

I can understand Category:Electrical energy control, (without checking your specific article inclusions), but your addition of automotive control systems to this category seems odd. Can you explain?

If you can't, I'll propose the category for deletion, as it has neither inclusion criteria nor a home article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Arthur
These automotive control systems intelligently manages the vehicles kinetic energy to thermal energy (in the brakes) when braking: Anti-lock braking system, Electronic Stability Control, Electronic brakeforce distribution.
These automotive control systems intelligently manages the vehicles (increasing) transmission energy under acceleration: Automatic transmission, Electronic Differential, Launch control (automotive), Semi-automatic transmission, Traction control system.
These control systems intelligently manages the engine: Engine control unit, Idle reduction.
--Glenn (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that's too much conflating of different definitions of energy. Please write the description of the category before putting disperate articles into a category. Consider control rod for an additional article which might belong in the category. Please check Wikipedia:Category and see whether the categories you've created lately meet that guideline. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
To some extent control rod could be in category, but by itself, it is not major part of an intelligent energy control system. The nuclear control system does hovever.
When more articles is included there might be a category like: Category:Mechanical energy control.
I have read about Wikipedia:Categorization, but I can not find argument why it should not be there.
I can not understand the word "conflating". Can you please explain?
--Glenn (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I may be using a non-standard definition of "conflating", but I mean that "electrical energy transfer", "kinetic energy transfer", etc. only have the name in common, not any characteristics in common which might lead a person interested in one to be interested in another. In any case, I've nominated four of the categories for deletion. You're welcome to comment (or add any other categories which have the same characteristics). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Please put your "rename" comments in the CfD, rather than in the category itself, so that the discussion can be unified. If they were to be renamed, it would have to be done through a CfD anyway. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not replace a category under deletion with a new name, without copying the CfD notice. It's a clear violation of the CfD instructions to empty a category while under CfD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok. --Glenn (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 3#Energy

I believe there was indeed consensus to delete these. Johnbod asked if they were otherwise categorised, and was assured that they were. I took this to be accurate. C J Cowie suggested renaming various categories. The renamed ones were not deleted. It seems that you have recreated some of the categories. Please don't do this unilaterally. I would think that you'd be best to discuss the sort of categorisation schemes you have in mind with other interested editors and to reach agreement in advance rather than present them with a fait accompli. Disputes just mean more work all round. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I assumed, incorrectly, that you had recreated the categories but in fact they have not been deleted yet. Again, regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)