User talk:Matt McIrvin

Well, you seem to have done a great job at finding all the relevent formatting info etc on your own, but let me officially extend you our canned welcome message anyway.

So, hi there, "Matt McIrvin" and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:

.
 * Peruse Welcome, newcomers and associated pages, such as
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * You can experiment in the Sandbox.
 * Sign talk page entries with ~, which is automatically converted to a name and date.
 * If you have any questions, see Help, or you can a question at the Help desk.
 * I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian.

Keep up the great work! Best wishes, -- Infrogmation 01:34, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks... I learned a thing or two during my time as an anonymous dabbler. --Matt McIrvin 01:53, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Physics articles
Hello, Matt. I read your LiveJournal entry "Physics on Wikipedia" and fully agree with your observations. Just wanted to step by to tell you that you're doing a great job here. Keep it up! And do consider submitting articles you've written or improved that you feel meet the goal of being accessible yet comprehensive to Featured article candidates so your work here gets the recognition it deserves. Fredrik | talk 23:30, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! --Matt McIrvin 00:14, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

List of space shuttle missions
Hey, thanks for going through and filling in the Notes fields. I really didn't want to go do that part. ;) -Joseph (Talk) 02:14, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

I'm looking at the landing sites, too... landings at KSC actually started earlier. --Matt McIrvin 02:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Now that I've entered all the notes, it's fascinating to look at them all on one page and smell the politics. In the Eighties the Shuttle was primarily a comsat launcher, until the Challenger explosion, after which it was first a Big Government Spacecraft launcher, then a carrier of strangely low-profile science experiments... then there was the era of alternating Mir and Spacelab flights, then the fleet turned pretty much into ISS trucks, except for Columbia... --Matt McIrvin 03:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the renormalization article
I do not understand the article, to be honest, but I think it is unfair, and against the rules that people object to it getting featured only because laymen can not understand it. An objection is only valid when it can be dealt with. If the subject is very complex in itself then the argument that lay men can not understand it is an objection that can not be dealt with and is hence invalid. I find it great that somebody is able and willing to write such an article for Wikipedia. Thanks again. Andries 19:53, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, but I actually agree with most of the article's critics. When I wrote that article, I thought of it as the introduction I'd wanted to read when I was a confused graduate student. So I wrote it to about the level of an advanced undergrad or first-year graduate student in physics, which is probably way past the horizon of what belongs in a general-purpose encyclopedia. Unfortunately I think that a rewrite to make it more popularly accessible would take more time and mental energy than I can contribute at the moment. --Matt McIrvin 02:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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 " " 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 multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to 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 " " with "  ". 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)


 * You are correct that dual-licensing can cause changes to not be able to be used back with Wikipedia from a non-GFDL project. The only counter argument, if you'd call it that, is that some persons hold the ideology that if I don't personally choose to share-alike (copyleft) without restriction to a single license, how can I expect anyone else to do so?  So I take the first step and hope that they return the favor if at all possible.  I have no other counter argument.  Nevertheless articles on Wikipedia will *always* be GFDL, because you must agree to do so whenever you edit here.  So Wikipedia's articles will *never* be restricted.  All multi-licensing does is give additional options when using Wikipedia's articles outside of Wikipedia.    – Ram-Man (comment) (talk)   19:59, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Big Bang etc
(William M. Connolley 18:06, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)) Hi. I've just read your comment on Big Bang. I was concerned about some of JJ's entries there (and on gravity too) but have realised I don't have enough physics to (a) correct them or (b) really decide whether he's right or wrong. So... wrt your comments about slow edit war... I'm out of that for now (I'm getting Penroses latest opus for christmas and who knows that might make me try again in the new year, but I doubt it) so please join in if you have the time.

ps: I read your comments on RealClimate - thanks - I am one of them (though a minor one).

Image:Rhea true color.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rhea true color.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Chesnok (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Loop-diagram.png
File:Loop-diagram.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Loop-diagram.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Counterterm.png is now available as Commons:File:Counterterm.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)