User talk:False vacuum
|This is False vacuum's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to False vacuum.|
Articles for deletion nomination of Unruh temperature
I have nominated Unruh temperature, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unruh temperature. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
- You don't seem to entirely understand what deletion is for. No offense intended (well, not too much, anyway). I hope you're willing to learn. See my longer reply on your talk page. False vacuum (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Talkback notification from JamesBWatson
- As you will see if you look at my further response to this on my talk page, I have now undeleted the article. I accept that there is a reference, and I apologise for having misunderstood its nature. Thanks for pointing this out to me so that I could correct it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was
true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to
false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.
Italicization of subscripts
Hi False Vacuum. I noticed your edits today to Fresnel equations, in which you italicized all the subscripts on the variables. This was incorrect. Subscripts should be italicized only if they are themselves variables, not if they are descriptive labels that cannot be substituted for a quantity. So, for example, a variable Ti has an italic subscript if i is a variable that can take on different values, indicating that one has variables like T1, T2, etc. On the other hand if "i" stands for something like "incident" or "initial", the correct typography is Ti. This is explained at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)#Variables.--Srleffler (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Replied to/dealt with. Thanks for correction. (Italicisation still needs to be fixed in figures, but I don't have time.) False vacuum (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of X Lossless Decoder, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://softkumir.ru/cgi-bin/eng/soft.cgi?act=det&det=1270174159&prog=X+Lossless+Decoder+20100401.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, that was quick! It's a GFDL article, in case anyone's wondering (and it's not an exact copy, either). False vacuum (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- So, CC-BY-SA content can't be included in anything licensed under the GFDL, and GFDL content can't be included in anything licensed under CC-BY-SA (including Wikipedia). I had been assuming that since Wikipedia was previously under GFDL and switched to CC-BY-SA, the latter was backward-compatible with the former. Apparently that was not the case, but rather some kind of special temporary exemption was created—I'm not at all clear on how that would be possible, but then I'm not a lawyer. ...In fact, I now see under my edit box that it says "you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL [emphasis added]." I'm not even sure what kind of exemption could, even in principle, make it possible to license content under two mutually exclusive licenses simultaneously.
- ...In any case, I doubt that the HydrogenAudio folks would be interested in suing the Wikimedia Foundation, but apparently if they wanted Wikipedia to be able to reuse their content they'd have to change their license. Since they're a wiki too, though, I'm not sure how they could do that, lacking whatever special mojo Wikipedia used in 2009. Lucky for me I don't care enough to waste any more time on this (but I kind of wish someone would fix it). False vacuum (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- The GFDL isn't compatible with CC-BY-SA. When Wikipedia migrated to CC-BY-SA they had to negotiate with the people who publish the GFDL to modify the licence to specifically say that we could switch. The exemption doesn't actually allow us to stop using the GFDL for content we added prior to the switch, it says that we can licence pre-switch content under CC-BY-SA as well, which means we still need to ask people to release their contributions under the GFDL. The GFDL was designed for distributing software manuals and isn't really suitable for encyclopedias - in theory if you wanted to distribute printed copies of a Wikipedia article under the GFDL you would have to print out the lengthy text of the GFDL and distribute it with the article. The point of the licence change was to ensure that all our content could be distributed under CC-BY-SA, which is considered a better licence for our content. If you want to copy material from a wiki that's only available under CC-BY-SA then you can do that. I doubt that this particular wiki would sue us, but (a) you don't get to violate the law just because you haven't been caught, and (b) if we did decide to continue using this material after we knew we couldn't legally do so then it would probably count heavily against us if they ever did decide to sue us. Hut 8.5 11:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)