User talk:Dwmyers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi there, and welcome. Thanks for your great contributions! AxelBoldt 23:24 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)

Hello there Dwmyers, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, I second the above praise. Great work! Cheers! --maveric149

Hi. I notice you've been doing a lot of good work on various elements lately. Can I talk you into having a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements, where an attempt is being made at creating a standardised format for element pages? If you're not interested, no problem, we'll incorporate your material when we get round to those elements, but I just thought I'd draw your attention to it. --Bth

(in response to your comment on my talk page) Ah, fair enough. I confess I'd missed the overarching goal to what you were doing. Just thought I'd point you in the direction of it; some of it is fairly boring scutwork though (making the table, particularly). Interesting stuff on s, p, d, f, etc. on Talk:electron configuration -- I'd never heard that before. Hopefully one of us will get time to research it properly soon and put it into the article. --Bth


--- Nice work on the new element articles! Sadly I haven't had as much time for those lately I as would like. --mav

There is a problem with the placement of elements 71 and 103 that I've mentioned at talk:periodic table. --mav

Nothing I wrote to you was offensive. I see you're one of those people who only like to keep praise on their Talk pages. How egotistical. NOw that you may take as offensive. RickK 02:01, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Rick, I beg to differ. This is entertainment for me. It's not a job. It's not something where I have to suffer needlessly. You're nosy, offensive, and about as entertaining as a root canal. More so, if you're so "inoffensive", why do you insist on repetitively injecting yourself here when I've asked you to do otherwise? Dwmyers 15:07, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a communal effort. Even so, there is a certain manual of style. And there are some who prefer to dump new material and others, like myself, who prefer to make things look pretty, although I've also written my share of new articles. I did nothing to offend you other than to make a couple of recommendations to help you to be more collegial. I see that collegiality is not your style. Well, then, perhaps Wikipedia is not the right place for you. You do not own articles. No one does. Every has the right, and the responsibility, to make things better. And nowhere do you ask me not to "inject" myself here. Having said that, I'll move on, but don't expect me to let you make a fool of yourself. RickK 01:01, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Rick, simply put: my interest is in the content of this encyclopedia, and not in your personal assessments of the people who write in it, or how they write. And you can go and jump off a cliff, for all I care, if you plan to turn people into the focus of this place and not the content. I'm not here to be monitored, 1984ish, by you.

If, on the other hand, you're going to talk about articles and content, then I have no objection to what you do or say. But I am not here to talk about me, or you, understand? That you've wasted so much time on this says to me that I'm not the problem here. You are. And I'll be delighted to drop this and have you just go away, and do your stuff inside the 'pedia, and let me do mine. Dwmyers 01:44, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Hi Dwmyers. I'm contacting you because I read and appreciate the work you did on the Old Testament section of Dating the Bible. It was a good job, starting with very little useful stuff. Since you seem to be familiar with scholarly views of the OT, I wonder if you would mind having a look at Old Testament views of women? I rewrote it because it was in desperate need, but a lot of what I wrote was based on very skimpy references. Please make any comments you see fit.

Thanks for your help. DJ Clayworth 14:56, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the compliment. I don't get many of them! 168... 20:56, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] License ?

Hi, could you tell me if Image:UricAcid.png is public domain or GFDL or something like that. Thanks in advance. Tipiac 16:18, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Could indicate on Image:Ubiquinone3.png and Image:Ubiquinol3.png, whether they apply to {{PD}}, {{GFDL}}, or other Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. BCKILLa 07:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I didn't know it's been over a year since you've been on the wiki, welcome back if you get this message (when you get back) BCKILLa 07:27, 9 Dec 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 1000 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] Talk:Uranium/Temp

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Uranium/Temp, by 75.35.79.57 (talk ยท contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Uranium/Temp fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

this was a temporary working page intended to be deleted when work in was completed -- in 2003!


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Uranium/Temp, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Talk:Uranium/Temp itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Howdy!

I see you made a few edits recently - hopefully you can find time to come back. :) BTW, I'm thinking about expanding and polishing-up Oxygen for a push to Featured Article status. Since you are the person who de-stubbed it all those years ago and are somebody who I have great respect for, I'd like to see if you would like to help sometime during the next few weeks. Right now, I'm working on saving geology of the Bryce Canyon area (one of my first FAs) from de-featuring, but should be able to start on this article next weekend. Anyway, it sure is nice to see you have not forgotten about us here. :) --mav 16:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Opps - looks like those edits were made a year ago... --mav 02:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Documentary hypothesis

As you've been interested in the documentary hypothesis articlle in the past, I'd be grateful for your comments on my recent rewrite, if you have time. PiCo 14:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)