User talk:Hugh2414

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:


You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 14:27, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Copyediting article

Copyediting: You contributed to the copyediting page, and now after several users' contributions I'm trying to clarify whether the entry should really be under copyediting (I think probably so) or copy editor or what--see Talk:Copy editing. Your input welcome! Elf 17:57, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please don't move articles to disambiguation pages (as you just did with lens) around without discussing them first on the talk page; it's usual practice to keep the primary meaning of the term as the main article, with secondary meanings off of the (disambiguation) page. Now everything that links to lens goes through a redirect (considered bad form), and I can't move it back with "move page" because lens itself isn't blank. -- DrBob 16:49, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Point taken - sorry - mea culpa. But you can hardly argue that the optical-instrument sense is the primary meaning of "lens". Can you? -- Hugh2414 22:19, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey there. I would argue that, but I'm probably biased towards the optical meaning, so leaving it at lens (optics) is fine. Thanks for taking care of the links -- DrBob 15:57, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ==

You may want to take another editing pass at Ghosts (play): I didn't intentionally omit anything in the recent edit conflict. It's all yours for now. -- Nunh-huh 02:04, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 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:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" 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 [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". 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)


[edit] Category

Added category physician to your userpage. Hope I am not mistaken. --Nomen Nescio 03:32, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About the systematic review and meta-analysis

Hi there! There is a link to meta-analysis section. What futhur statements and links do you consider for that? Send them to me, or post them on the talk page of systmatic review section Thanks huji 17:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please give me your suggstions for this page

Hi
Could you please review this draft I've prepared for "dilated cardiomyopathy" section, and give your suggestions? Talk:Dilated_cardiomyopathy
Thanks
huji 13:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Of course I did!

Hi Of course I liked the changes you made (ref. Expand, copy-edit, ....!) Good luck huji—TALK 11:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elk

I merged three articles (Moose, Elk and cow-elk) into one, so if I put anything in, it was as a cut-and-paste. I've no idea if the swan meaning is true or not. jimfbleak 14:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Jay

You may wish to comment on the discussion on this page. jimfbleak 06:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/u/g/User_talk%7EHugh2414_9e16.html"