User talk:Artoftransformation

GFDL DRM: "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. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation license". Specifically: 1. If you copy, distribute and or modify this document, you cannot restrict others from copying, distrubting, and or modifying this documen and: 1A. This liscence *must* accompany that image. 2. You cannot publish them under any Digital Rights Managment DRM systems, other than The GNU free Documentation Liscense, to restrict the possessors of their copies, and or modified"

Image copyright problem with Image:Rogue Screen Shot.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Hi Artoftransformation!
We thank you for uploading Image:Rogue Screen Shot.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Rogue Unix Screenshot.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Hi Artoftransformation!
We thank you for uploading Image:Rogue Unix Screenshot.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few more places of interest

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:GFDL-self/image —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.2.115 (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag was posted that put this in the public domain, but it was deleted anyway. Ignorance is bliss. Enjoy.

*ssholes and Angels:

Angels: Happy Camper

ssholes:

East718: ^demonL:

MfD nomination of User:Artoftransformation/Blog

User:Artoftransformation/Blog, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome{b*llsh*t; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion{We really dont care, admins do what they what }/User:Artoftransformation/Blog]] and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Artoftransformation/Blog during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.{I shake my private parts at your auntie } – T W G 09:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Roll Call for offshore drilling http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll599.xml

OZone hole http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/hole.html

Make your eyes hurt http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45031000/jpg/_45031164_b0161104-73e8-45e0-9264-3cfb631ee7e6.jpg'

bypass Share http://www.technade.com/2007/02/rapidshare-tricks-and-hacks.html

Internet Time Servers: port 123

Server Address Location (IP Address) Ping1 Ping2 time-a.nist.gov NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland 129.6.15.28 time-b.nist.gov NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland 129.6.15.29 time-a.timefreq.bldrdoc.gov NIST, Boulder, Colorado 132.163.4.101 time-b.timefreq.bldrdoc.gov NIST, Boulder, Colorado 132.163.4.102 time-c.timefreq.bldrdoc.gov NIST, Boulder, Colorado 132.163.4.103 utcnist.colorado.edu University of Colorado, Boulder 128.138.140.44 time.nist.gov NCAR, Boulder, Colorado 192.43.244.18 time-nw.nist.gov Microsoft, Redmond, Washington 131.107.1.10 nist1.datum.com Datum, San Jose, California 66.243.43.21 nist1.dc.glassey.com Abovenet, Virginia 216.200.93.8 nist1.ny.glassey.com Abovenet, New York City 208.184.49.9 nist1.sj.glassey.com Abovenet, San Jose, California 207.126.103.204 nist1.aol-ca.truetime.com TrueTime, AOL facility, Sunnyvale, CA 207.200.81.113 nist1.aol-va.truetime.com TrueTime, AOL facility, Virginia 205.188.185.33

Rogue Screenshot Question

Why did you create it in a widecreen format? Terminals of the 80s would have been 4:3 format. Thanks. ---- Theaveng (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not take a screen shot. I made an artists rendering in TheDraw in ascii, as an interpretation of what the screen would look like. As such, the font of terminal, rendered it in what ever aspect ratio it creates a 25x80 ascii screen. In the 80s, the IBM Monochrome screen's aspect would vary to beat hell. It would sometimes have a 3/4" border on the left and the right, or a 1" border on the top and bottom... so the widescreen format deepened more on the font, then on the actual display.

My suggested leap-year calendar reform

My leap-year rules:

If the year is divisible by 4, it is a leap year...
but if it is also divisible by 100, it is not a leap year...
but if it is also divisible by 400, it is a leap year...
but if it is also divisible by 4000, it is not a leap year...
but if it leaves a remainder of 200 or 600 when divided by 900, it is a leap year.

What I'd like to know is, how accurate is this? --116.14.26.124 (talk) 05:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would increase the accuracy from the Gregorian Calendar from 8000 years to 85,000 years. read the article, and the simple calculation is based upon error analysis. The mean length of a sidereal year is 365.2422 days. The Julian calendar is based upon a year of 365.25 days. Hence the arror collected often enough for the precessioon of easter, which lead to Gregorian reform. The proposal McCarthy and Babcock in the year 4000, the calendar will fall behind by at least 0.8, but less than 1.1 days. In the year 12,000 the calendar would fall behind at least 8, but less than 12 day

--Artoftransformation (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

build on your strengths

Frank V. went to visit Alfredro Cosentino, who had worked for Carlos Abarth in Italy when he was younger: ( Cosentino, wrote books about Abarth, and owned a small Abarth parts/museam in Thousand Oaks ) http://www.alfabb.com/bb/forums/alfa-romeo-topics-not-covered-elsewhere/202533-rip-alfred-cosentino-faza-abarth-ansa-etc.html Frank: "What was the most important thing you leared from him" Costntino said "to build on your strengths, what ever you are best at."

a few friends

"robocop" <pwnfknight@cock.li> "bunn" <bun@cock.li> "TheJIDF" <JIDF@cock.li> "cat" <cat@airmail.cc> "Liquid" <LiquidFilth@cock.li> admin@lainchan.org admin@volafile.io "anon3000" <anon3000@cock.li> apha@tfwno.gf "auxo" <auxo@tfwno.gf> "bbaka" <bbaka@tfwno.gf> "BeetRoot" <beetroot@cock.li> bot@cock.li "Bsdfggt" <bsdfggt@cock.li> "cyberia" <cyberia@cock.li> "cyberia" <cyberia@tfwno.gf> "Dolos" <dolos@cock.li> "Dong" <dongmasteronvola.2@cock.li> "Dong" <dongmasteronvola@cock.li> "dongle" <dongle@tfwno.gf> "Dustin Fonseca" <Bigsp00n.df@gmail.com> fuuck@tfwno.gf garett@cock.li "GetDDoSed" <getddosed@cock.li> "gfx the giraffe" <anonope@gmail.com> gitgood@outlook.com "john carter" <cjohn5875@gmail.com> johnnydee@cock.li "Kalyx" <kalyx@openmailbox.org> "katz" <katz@national.shitposting.agency> katz.1@national.shitposting.agency katz.2@national.shitposting.agency katz.3@national.shitposting.agency katz.4@national.shitposting.agency katz.5@national.shitposting.agency kreg@cock.li kreg.2@cock.li lasol@cock.li nsf001@tfwno.gf qtcat@airmail.cc "Red" <redrifle@cock.li> rogue@cock.li "sid" <sid@pomf.se> thersanderia@cock.li "TheSoph" <thesoph@horsefucker.org> "TRM" <TeRM@cock.li> "Vapor Eon" <volaporeon@gmail.com> "Vincent Canfield" <vc@cock.li> VolaError@cock.li Zdelta@protonmail.ch

File:Rogue Unix Screenshot CAR.PNG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rogue Unix Screenshot CAR.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. czar 00:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue screen shots

Moved from User talk:czar

"Copyright needs clarification. Is this a screenshot of Rogue or not? And why would it not be released under the same license as Rogue? If it is a manual recreation in the style of Rogue, we need more information on what has been changed and why it still has the fidelity to illustrate Rogue or just roguelike gameplay."

There was a question of copyright, which I provided a screen shot that both showed it had a PD version, and the history which documented there was a PD version, However this was not enough to stop someone trolling me regarding proof. Even an email from the author was insufficent, where as the proof for much more insignificant peices of software.

It is not a screen shot, but almost an exact representation, after years of experence and use, of what a typical screen would look like. The screen has a random dungeon, so ever screen is diffrent. What has been changed is only the source. The souce is not a screen shot, but an exact representation that would be indistinguishable from a real shot. It still has the fidelity to illustrated Rogue. Actual game play needs animation, and some tips on how you play, which I believe that tips are not welcome.

but this is a few years, after the file is long gone. It seems that whom ever yells the longest, and is willing to fight for disinformation will somehow have their version of history, prevail, even though the person who wanted it deleted, just wanted to exorcise the power, not contribute to history. So Screw history. best of luck with accuracy. It will not go well.

Thanks for your concern, but the battle was lost long ago. Fail wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artoftransformation (talk • contribs) 23:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there is a version of the software in the public domain? And if so, can you take a screenshot of it? czar 23:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the talk page: "So, despite the link to at least 28 versions, and the source code, after inspecting the Epyx code, There still is a version, that I have, that they dont have, that says Public Domain, does not appear to have the copy protection disabled, and does not appear to have a hacked string for the splash screen, that I maintain is The Public Domain version. The splashscreen is significant because it is the only proof that the game has a public domain version, that we can take screen shots. Because this was in doubt, I had to hand render all the screen shots in TheDraw. The removal of this proof puts the legitimacy of the other shot from the IBM PC in doubt. ( In fact, since the proof of its legitimacy is gone, It needs to be removed also. ). "

Courtesy link: Talk:Rogue (video game)#rm image that bears no significant relation to article text (hacked DOS version title screen

The task is to ascertain whether the original is available under a free license. The game's article text says the BSD version was released under a BSD license (I haven't compared the terms to see if there is any issue of that license version's license compatibility with Wikipedia). If the DOS version is identical to the original, and the original is not available under a free license, the derivative would be a copyright infringement (and the license of the infringing version wouldn't matter). Similarly, an image drawn based on the game's generative rendering would have to ensure that it didn't infringe on the original author's rights. So, yes, trying to help: Is the original work available under a Wikipedia-compatible license, and if so, let's screenshot it and I could help restore your other images. czar 02:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The two DOS versions were not BSD Licensed, The commercial one ( you can die from copyright infringement ), and the Public Domain version have no copyright BSD Notice in the source code ( which is linked here for inspection. ) The images are artistic representations. Can you read? Please read the opening line a few times. This will answer all your questions, and prevent you asking more of the same silly questions for the umteentheen time. I now believe that asking a question that could already be answered is both rude and uncivil. -Aot

Proposed deletion of File:Bohr H EnergyStates.Jpeg

The file File:Bohr H EnergyStates.Jpeg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Borh Model H.jpg

The file File:Borh Model H.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]