User talk:D-rew

userboxes

I hope I wasn't too bold, but I fixed the userboxes on your user page like you requested. You have to put the userboxes first, then the words. Also, you need to close {{userboxtop}} by putting {{userboxbottom}} at the end of the userboxes. Have a great day and welcome to Wikipedia! ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 20:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are being helpful you are not being too bold, thanks. D-rew 20:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear D-rew: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD!

Stub sorting

Thank you for your stub sorting. There is a stub sorting project. If you want to place an article is the correct stub category then there is a list at WP:WSS/ST. If you cant find the right one then put it in {{stub}} as you have been doing and someone wil find the right stub tag or request it. Thanks again. Ksbrown^talk 15:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mild constant

Hello, D-rew.

Thanks for working on the stub sorting project. I am curious about one thing. Do you read the articles very closely? I'm asking because you characterized this article as a math-stub. So that put it on a list where I saw it, and I slapped a "hoax" tag on it right away.

Anyway, you say you're trying to gain experience, and you've rated yourself a "mediocre+" editor (that's cute!), so you might want to read that article one more time to see if you agree with my assessment.

Thanks for helping to make Wikipedia better! DavidCBryant 02:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, D-rew.

Thanks for writing back. I'm not trying to be critical. I just wanted to draw your attention to that article one more time. Oh ... did you hit "edit this page" when you wrote back to me? There's a little plus sign button right next to that one, which makes it easy to reply at the bottom of someone's talk page -- it opens a window where you can start up a new section.

Have a great day! ;^> DavidCBryant 11:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it kosher that I went on your talk page and fixed it? I know user page's have some taboos about editing around other people's stuff. Hope i did the right thing, and thanks again for the help.D-rew 17:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's OK with me, as I've already indicated on my own talk page. And you're entirely welcome. Oh – I don't want to embarrass you with the quote, but it seemed so interesting, to me, that I just wanted to put it up there. You're pretty lucky, if you think almost everyone (on Wikipedia) is kind. I've run into some pretty nasty customers already, as you might guess by looking at the names for the archives from my talk page ("The Good", "The Bad", and "The Ugly"). Fortunately, I've got a pretty thick skin, and most of that stuff just rolls right off. And I haven't seen any flame wars on WP (yet) to rival the hot ones I've witnessed on some e-mail chat lists I've been on in the past.

Have a great weekend, D-rew! DavidCBryant 00:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub sorting of National Environmental Research Institute of Denmark and NILU

I know that you are into this "stub-sorting" thing. I really don't care very much, but you have carried it a bit far with the National Environmental Research Institute of Denmark article. That organization is about a great deal more that simply "climate" and the climate stub is inappropriate. I don't want to make a big deal of this ... just wanted to state my opinion.

I might add that the same is true of the NILU article where you also changed to the climate stub. I suggest that you read both articles thoroughly. Regards, - mbeychok 05:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you say you watchlist talk pages you recently posted on, so i will give this a whirl. I agree, I was an idiot for National Environmental Research Institute of Denmark, bad edit, fixed it. I was wrong, thanks for fixing me. However, on the NILU I'm not so sure I made a mistake, or I at least think its a closer call. It doesn't directly relate to meteorology of the weather as such, but it studies air pollution primarily, which not only strongly contributes too the climate, but is also heavily influenced by it. Not to mention that the actual stub title at Stub types is atmospheric science, which this article definitley relates too. If I'm wrong please explain why, cause I don't see it. Oh, also, since this is the second questionable stub sort i've gotten in as many days I'm gonna go back over my edits to make sure that they were sound, maybe I was just off my game face. Thanks. D-rew 16:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a retired engineer who worked in the field of air pollution modeling (and authored a book on the subject), that field generally involves a local spatial scale whereas the climate usually involves much large regional spatial scales ... and there is, at best, only a tenuous link between air pollution modeling and climate. If that stub actually used the words "atmospheric science" rather than "climatology/meteorology", then it wouldn't be so misleading. But, as I said before, it isn't a big deal. mbeychok 19:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I never liked how the stub category is called atmospheric science, but the template reads Climate/Meteorology. Even someone with the only the most basic understanding of the subjects (like me) can see those are different. I will be more careful though in the future, because the template should trump the category considering the template is what people see. Also as another 'ask the expert' question, so I don't make similar mistakes in the future, doesn't smog, etc., (not to mention global warming on a macroscale) not count as air pollution affecting a local climate? Wouldn't air pollution modeling and climate have a pretty intimate interaction in these situations?D-rew 20:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my Wikipedia experience, the stubs very, very rarely result in getting someone to improve an article. Such improvement most usually comes about when someone who knows something about the subject of an article (or thinks he does) comes across the article and decides to work on it. I don't think many people, if any, consciously go looking for stub articles to work on. Regards, - mbeychok 19:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a shame, because stubs seem like such a good tool for classifying and listing articles that need improvement by areas of expertise. That's part of the reason I've been stub sorting (the others being on my talk page).D-rew 20:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is there a way when I do an internal link (like stub sorting above), that i can make it go to a certain part of the page, that way it's easier to follow?D-rew 17:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I understand your question, but I'll give it a try. If you want a Wiki link (an internal link, as you called it) to point to a section of an article, you do it like this NILU#Fields of work. That will take you to the section with the header "Fields of work". You write it as [[NILU#Fields of work]]. You simply use the # sign between the title of the article and the title of the section of that article. Does that answer your question? Regards, again. - mbeychok 19:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was my question, thanks. As an aside, is it typical to split up the previous post (and i think you split up mine) to better answer questions and such on a topic by topic basis?D-rew 20:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you responded to my original posting here, you had two separate responses with two separate signatures, so I answered each of your responses separately. So, in reality, you started the splitting. However, to answer your question, many responders will split up the previous post so as to respond on a topic to topic basis. It is fairly common.

As for global warming, it is supposedly caused by the emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from the combustion of fossil fuels and really has more to do with atmospheric chemistry, planetary wind flows, and other advanced, large scale meteorological parameters. It really isn't connected to the modeling of air pollutants on a local scale. I said "supposedly" because many eminent scientists (including the head of the atmospheric science department at Massachussetts Institiute of Technology) are not convinced that global warming is not a part of a natural cycle of events. As for smog, that concerns a discipline known as atmospheric chemistry (a subset of atmospheric science) that deals with what happens to certain pollutants after they enter the upper atmosphere and how that atmospheric chemistry forms what we call smog. Again, it is only tenuously connected to air pollution dispersion modeling. As I said before, if that stub were labeled "Atmospheric science stub", it would be much more appropriate. Regards, - mbeychok 22:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, you've been very helpful.D-rew 23:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add messages at the bottom

Regarding your message at User talk:DavidCBryant — please add new sections of messages at the bottom of the talk page; and new messages in a section at the bottom of the section. JRSpriggs 10:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done (meaning I fixed it on the page). Thanks for the info. D-rew 16:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geophysical engineering

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Geophysical engineering, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Argyriou (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AppVoicesLogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:AppVoicesLogo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 01:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mountaintop removal mining

Excellent revision on the MTR page!Athene cunicularia 04:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never say no to a compliment. Thanks, but I'm not done with that page yet!D-rew 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, keep you the good work!Athene cunicularia 16:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This post on the Google Blog might provide some good info, even if it can't be directly cited, it has a lot of links in it.Athene cunicularia (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Mountains

A tag has been placed on I Love Mountains, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Truthanado (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree as noted on the talk page of the page.D-rew (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consider redirecting the article to the Appalachian Voices page, and merging the information there, since the AV page is very small.Athene cunicularia (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the appvoices page is small because its only been around a month, it'll get larger as more people find it. I don't think I love mountains should be merged with it since they are quite distinct entities and it would be a disservice to the 6 other environmental organizations that are noted on the I love mountains site as contributors. I think its more a 'see also' thing.D-rew (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that the I Love Mountains entry is set to redirect to Appalachian Voices, which is somewhat inaccurate. I am glad to offer more direct information regarding that, but am very new to Wikipedia and therefore not sure how to edit that myself. Also, the logo used in conjunction with the Appalachian Voices page is not the correct image, but it says I am not allowed to edit that image. Again, since I am new to Wikipedia edits, I am uncertain how to proceed. Jamieav (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Wikipedian template

I've removed the template as you say you are impartial yourself. As I point out on the Dennett's talk page, we don't currently have any actual guidelines on when/if we should use it, only how to use it if we should want to. Read this quote from another editor: "Someone notable I know has this template on the page about them because they corrected one fact in the article. They feel that they've now being branded forevermore as the dreaded auto-biographer, and that the presence of the template implies that their motives were bad to anyone who reads the talk page." Richard001 (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said I didn't care about the subject. However, as I said in the DD talk page, I think current practice (if not policy) is to add the tag, so I do think the tag should be added back to the page.D-rew (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is it only takes one person to add the tag, and it usually won't get removed, so I doubt 'common practice', from the few cases known, is all that reflective of people's views on this. I think we need to get more input on the template talk page; an RfC and mention on at the village pump would be appropriate. Richard001 (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:About_miller-family02.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:About_miller-family02.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 15:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Saddleback 2.JPG

Any chance you could reupload this to Commons? We really prefer to keep everything together at the category there. Richard001 (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence

Hello. I'm contacting you and other members of WikiProject Books in order to find if you are interested in collaborating to expand and improve The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence article to make it worthy of becoming a featured article candidate, in light of the fact that it is the first book the U.S. government ever went to court to censor before its publication. --Loremaster (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:1067322704 7dfaecc455 o.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:1067322704 7dfaecc455 o.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Top Removal

Hey, you seem knowledgeable in this area, do you know any sites with before-after pictures? Thanks a lot, Grsz ¹¹ 05:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I did. I've honestly been looking for any good (useable) MTR pictures period, because the ones I've added were actually taken by a relative. The feasibility of a before/after that would fall into the copyright status would be very difficult to find methinks. I think something more feasible is if you want something like a before/after on the page (which would be great) would be to find a MTR site and a picture of a comparable (normal) Appalachian mountain from the same region and just stitch them together. Just be sure to note that they are not the same mountain in the description. Thanks for your help on that page.D-rew (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if someone were to contact sites such as Appalachian Voices or iLoveMountains.org, they may be willing to release some photos. Or a like-minded individual on Flick. Grsz ¹¹ 23:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sub-surface mining

Hi, I started a discussion about changing Category:Sub-surface mining to Category:Underground mining, I wanted to see what the thoughts of other participents of WikiProject Mining were.--kelapstick (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent discussions at WikiProject Mining

Hi, there are some discussions you may want to weigh in on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mining about:

Naming conventions for multiple mines with the same name
Using "Categorty:Metal mine in Country" in community/company articles
Capitalizing the word "mine" in article titles

Cheers,--kelapstick (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:MazePortrait2005NBWeb.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:MazePortrait2005NBWeb.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Free rationale for File:JonathanMiller.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:JonathanMiller.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:AppVoicesLogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AppVoicesLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monument file

If you send me an email I will send you the original file. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will let you know if/where I publish your image.D-rew (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, D-rew. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]