User talk:Milton Beychok



Just archived my last Talk page (Archive 6)
So things look a bit bare here right now. I don't think that will last long. Milton Beychok 05:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

NDOTW & AOTW
Hi Milt, sorry for causing confusion, and thanks for being blunt. The reason I did that was that the AOTW as visible on the Welcome page then did neither link to the approved version nor to the draft, it did not contain an image, and the "read more" started right after the text, with no space in between. Since I cannot edit approved articles, I did a temporary fix and thought I'd marked it clearly as such in my edit summaries. If not, please excuse, and I will pay more attention in the future. However, I honestly hope we can integrate the preparation for transclusion into the approval process (and clear the backlog for those approved so far). We are waiting for Larry to approve the proposed solution via a dedicated Transclusion subpage. --Daniel Mietchen 08:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Daniel, the real point is that all of us do not understand how templates are coded. So when a template is revised temporarily, the revision should be removed as soon as possible ... or an explanation should be provided as to how others can remove the temporary change. Anyway, I am happy that Caesar fixed it. Milton Beychok 18:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Canterbury Tales
Hi, Milton, I fear you flatter me: I certainly do have the time, but the expertise is lacking. I never read much of Chaucer, nor of his contemporaries William Langland and the Gawain poet - they could perhaps be included, but wouldn't related articles require a lot of background on England in the Middle Ages? I'm no historian, but if there any concrete ways in which I could help out, do let me know. Ro Thorpe 13:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Specialist supporter
I thought it was a routine editing matter to change a vote of an Editor in a relevant workgroup to Specialist -- that's the essential definition of a specialist. In this case, since it involves a new Editor, he might not have known the distinction (an aside -- one reason why I don't think people should be Editors from Day 1). If it bothers you, it can move back. I suppose there's a certain level of proceduralism that makes me uncomfortable that we are more worried about appearance than content. Certainly, I think we've gone far beyond that when a minor edit suddenly makes it impossible for an Editor to do a single Approval. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I accidently saw this. Allow me to comment it: I did not add my name as a specialist supporter because the rules on the page say: "Add your name in the Specialist supporters column only if you are an editor who is an expert about the topic in question." It says expert about the topic. For me topic is narrower than "workgroup". When I noticed that Howard changed this, I assumed that it should be interpreted as "workgroup", when you changed it back I was puzzled and realized that the rules might be a matter of interpretation. (This probably should be clarified.) May I add that it is a rather minor and quite unimportant risk whether a new editor votes with his full power or not. (There might be other risks.) On the other topic mentioned: It really should be clarified when an editor loses the right to approve an article single-handedly, in particular, since active editors seem to be extremely rare. I think that some contributing should be allowed. And one should be aware that suggesting edits on the talk page may have the same effect as editing the page directly. The criteria should be independent of such manipulations. Peter Schmitt 20:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (fixed formatting) I hadn't thought about the topic vs. workgroup, since I had always read it as workgroup. Article/draft of the week are fairly minor things, so I'm not too worried, but the granularity of "workgroup" remains a problem.  I remember a noncontroversial item a while back, in an article under the Religion workgroup, citing a news item about tear gas. When I simply commented on the talk page that neither the chemical or the grenade worked that way, I wasn't doing so as a Military editor. In like manner, any of us might be an expert on a specific topic outside a workgroup.


 * Joe Quick, I believe, has been thinking about ways to use outside experts simply as reviewers. This is one possible way to deal with the situation where there is one active Editor who is also the author. There are times where an Author Citizen is an expert on a particular topic -- I remember an occasion when I was writing generally about a piece of military electronics that another Citizen had operated and maintained. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with both of you that the interpretation as to the meaning of "specialist" (in the context of Article/New Draft of the week) is a minor item. What made me uncomfortable, Howard, was the fact that someone other other than Peter changed Peter's vote. I think that voting changes should only be made by the person who voted. I would not have been the least bit uncomfortable if Peter had changed his vote himself. Milton Beychok 22:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it was changing my voice only if I may choose to vote as a specialist or not. If not, then it only was "putting my vote into the correct urn". I still don't know what is case. If "specialist"="editor in the workgroup and if one is supposed to vote as such then I would change it myself. Peter Schmitt 23:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can only express my opinion. I do not think that an editor in a particular work group is automatically an "expert" in every subject included in that workgroup. For example, I am an editor in the engineering workgroup but my academic degree and all of my experience is in the field of chemical engineering which is but one of the many fields of engineering. I do not consider myself an expert in civil engineering or electrical engineering or aeronautical engineering. I am also fairly sure that a medical doctor who has 30 years or more experience in dermatology would not consider himself an expert in brain surgery. As another example, my good friend Howard is an engineering editor but I am fairly sure that there are many fields of engineering in which he doesn't consider himself an "expert".


 * I have stressed the word "expert" because "specialist supporters" of Articles and New Drafts of the week are defined as "an editor who is an expert about the topic in question". I don't see how that can be interpreted other than as I have done. Milton Beychok 00:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So my first interpretation of the rule is also your interpretation of that rule, and I do not consider me as a specialist. (However, I shall probably nominate the article for approval, sooner or later.) Peter Schmitt 00:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Joule-Thomson effect
Milton, please read my comments on the talk page of Joule-Thomson effect. David E. Volk 15:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to copyedit
Thanks for noticing; I'm glad the project has grown large enough that occasional copy editing is of service. Jesse Weinstein 17:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving Talk page Chemical elements
Milton, thanks. Can you give me a brief summary on how to archive. Much appreciated. Anthony.Sebastian 18:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding references speaking for themselves
Milton, you say references speak for themselves, and I agree. But I disagree no copy from the reference should accompany its citation. Including copy, such as an abstract or an excerpt, has several values that contribute to the quality of the article:


 * 1) It improves the content value of the article itself by providing pertinent textual informational not contained in the Main Article text.
 * 2) It provides that additional informational content without requiring the reader to link away from the Main Article, interrupting the flow of the Main Article.
 * 3) It renders the article more encyclopedic, in the sense of comprehensiveness. The reader gets a bigger picture from the article without having to get that bigger picture through chasing down the references.
 * 4) If the reader wants to contribute as a collaborator, having that bigger picture may open new areas for them to help develop the article.

I could spell out other values of the practice particular to particular instances.

I prefer to keep the annotations to the references, for those and other reasons, both practical and scholarly.

Thank you for considering this. Anthony.Sebastian 01:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Anthony, I think that one or two brief sentences (and I do mean one or two brief sentences) as annotations are okay. But I do not believe that extensive extracts or excerpts should be used. And I strongly object to including a "publisher's description" of a book or article ... those are just hype to promote purchase of the book or article.


 * In my own articles, if a reference contains useful information that is pertinent the articles, then I work that content into the main text of the article where it is relevant ... rather than annotate the reference with an extensive abstract or excerpt.


 * The way to render an article more encylopedic is to do make the main article text more comprehensive ... rather using the references for that purpose.


 * The whole idea of linking words to another article is what makes an online encylopedia more interesting and easier to use than a printed encyclopedia. If each article tried to avoid word links by explaining words via reference annotations, then we would soon have a number of articles (written by different authors) all explaining the same word or words in a different manner ... which really would confuse readers! For example, there may be dozens of aricles using the words "chemical reaction". If they all link to the same collaboratively written and agreed upon article entitled "Chemical reaction" ... then they all provide the same information as they should. However,if each of those dozens of article attempts to explain "chemical reactions" by a footnote or by an annotated reference, then readers will have dozens of different explanations of "chemical reactions" ... which is not as it should be.


 * In closing, I just looked at a good number of articles by David Volk, by Daniel Mietchen, by Paul Wormer and one article that was contributed to extensively by Sekha Telluri, David Volk and Daniel Mietchen. None those included annotated references or "further reading" sections by more than 1 or perhaps 2 sentence. In fact, most of their references had no annotation at all. So it is fairly obvious, that I am not the only one that doesn't believe in overly extensive annotation of references or footnotes. Milton Beychok 03:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Milton, we seem to have a difference of opinion, each strongly held. I believe we also have a difference in pedagogic style. Neither emerge rarely in collaborative writing projects. Nevertheless, I understand your points, and consider them valid from the perspective you offer. Anthony.Sebastian 03:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Anthony. I hope we are still friends. Regards, Milton Beychok 03:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)