User talk:D-rew

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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!

[edit] 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. Ksbrowntalk 15:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

Done and done (meaning I fixed it on the page). Thanks for the info. D-rew 16:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/-/r/User_talk%7ED-rew_8157.html"