User talk:Welcome to Citizendium/Archive2

Why I revised the front page intro a few days ago
I revised the front page intro substantially a few days so thought I should explain my rationale. The former verbiage was seeming sort of like a business that had been around a while yet still rather oddly had its "Grand Opening!" sign up front. That sort of sign works to draw in new customers for a while, but there is another group who will still only drive by and not come in. They want to know "we're still here and we're a growing business who is here to stay, so it's a really good to come in now." It's flowing with a seemingly natural cycle, I suppose. At any rate, that was what I tried to do. Stephen Ewen 06:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Slight redesign
I don't like the current layout of the main page; it's too cluttered at the top and it looks silly having the logo twice.

I'd like to change it to something like this or this (sorry about the long header, if you have a low-resolution screen) - what does anyone think of the idea?

Caesar Schinas 11:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I decided to be bold. If people don't like this, we can revert. Caesar Schinas 15:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See here for the old version. Caesar Schinas 15:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer the new version over the old one and think we should go ahead with the redesign - for instance, I like the drop image very much but find it out of place here: adding water to the ocean probably isn't too appropriate an image for an attempt to structure anything, and be it knowledge. --Daniel Mietchen 00:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, an improvement, and yes, exit the drop. Ro Thorpe 00:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, the drop should go. A nice pic, but not the message we want to send. How about a pic of a *VAST* reading room, such as the LOC or whatever it is in London, or the Bodelian, or whatnot, a *enormous* repository of knowledge? Old-fashioned, sure, and not hip, but appropriate.... Hayford Peirce 02:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * When I worked at LOC, there was a very popular cartoon from the New Yorker, with a crowd, pointing Superman-style to a lone figure in the Main Reading Room, shouting "Look! It's a Congressman!"


 * Hehe. Hayford Peirce 04:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't know what vast means, however, until you get accidentally locked in the stacks and the lights are turned out. Trust me. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You should read the wonderful 1951-ish novel by Michael Innes called either Operation Pax or The Paper Thunderbolt, where the climatic scene is set in the 30-story-deep underground stacks of the Bodelian.... (imaginary, he says, in a note) Hayford Peirce 04:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the drop, but perhaps as you say it's not appropriate. It's not very noticeable down at the bottom of the page, anyway. Caesar Schinas 06:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added code to make the quotation change every month, and added a few more quotations... Not sure if we want them to start again after a year, but it's a start.
 * Best not to get rid of the drop until images are working again. Caesar Schinas 07:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Server restarted
There was some bad RAM in one of our main servers, and it was just replaced. Glad I was around when the server went down, so I could get the Steadfast people on the case. But now (I observe) the images are not showing up. Well...we'll see what's going on there, I don't know when the images will be showing up, but by tomorrow AM I hope. --Larry Sanger 06:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd just been going to ask if something was wrong with all the images or if it was just me...
 * When is "tomorrow AM"? How about a GMT time?
 * Caesar Schinas 06:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't live on GMT, I live on Eastern Standard. That is 4 or 5 hours behind GMT, depending on time of year...you can do the math, I trust. :-) --Larry Sanger 01:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can understand that. It's hard for us non-US-people to get our heads around the fact that you have so many different timezones...
 * Perhaps we should make it a rule that everyone puts their timezone on their userpage? I know some Citizens already do.
 * Caesar Schinas 06:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No idea about the time zones, but I don't see the images either. Aleksander Stos 07:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Splitting out AOTW and NDOTW
I've moved the Article of the Week and the New Draft of the Week to CZ:Article of the Week/current and CZ:New Draft of the Week/current, respectiveyl, and transcluded them onto this page so that this page doesn't have to be edited every time those are updated. Caesar Schinas 07:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Pictures
I don't see the pictures on the main page, not with FireFox, Google Chrome nor IE8--Paul Wormer 08:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC) PS: All picture stuff (including LaTex) is screwed up right now.--Paul Wormer 08:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Larry is aware of this - see above - but I don't know if anything is being done about it. Caesar Schinas 09:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Pictures are appearing for me, as of 13:37 GMT. Anton Sweeney 12:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * They actually started working again some time before 12:30 GMT yesterday. Caesar Schinas 13:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Update
Well, RAM on the server that was chronically crashing was replaced last night (almost 24 hours ago now). It is possible that bad RAM was the cause of the chronic crashing. If so, we shouldn't see crashes nearly as regularly. Fingers crossed! --Larry Sanger 01:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Quotations
I've altered the code slightly so that a pseudo-random quotation is displayed on every page load, though in practice it won't be quite every time due to caching.

There are currently 12 quotations - should we have more?

If anyone adds more, they'll have to change the randomisation code slightly; it needs to know how many quotes there are.

Caesar Schinas 16:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Caesar, exactly how do I change the code if I add a quotation?
 * The best quotations, IMHO, the ones that encourage people to write/edit.
 * Anthony.Sebastian 02:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Logo
Who else think that this looks much better than this? Caesar Schinas 08:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do. The background needs to be transparent, I think.  I use the default skin, and there's an ugly white box around the logo. Anton Sweeney 09:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, this can only be changed by someone who can change the files on the server; it's not a setting which can be changed on the wiki. Caesar Schinas 10:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If, by the "default skin", you mean MonoBook... well, it's not the default skin. Pinkwich5, in my screenshots, is. Caesar Schinas 16:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do, too. --Daniel Mietchen 16:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What are we called?
Looks like we need to decide what our name is. On this page there are at least three different names... We have

Welcome to Citizendium

Write for the Citizendium

Why Citizendium?

Citizendium may be different...

So which should we use? I think Larry has said in the past that it's the Citizendium, but it's not that way in the logo.

If it is that, this page should be renamed Welcome to the Citizendium. (No italics in the pagename...)

Caesar Schinas 15:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And what about Eduzendium? I guess it would have to be the Eduzendium. Caesar Schinas 15:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Random citations
I like this feature very much and wonder whether we should use a similar switch to randomly display one of the approved articles. To ensure proper formatting, we may need a dedicated subpage specific to each approved version, or at least an "includeonly" or "onlyinclude" section in the article itself. I just gave "onlyinclude" a try with some non-trivial formatting: now gives Such a procedure now also facilitates, via Winner, the formatting of suitable parts of an article for inclusion into the Welcome page as the CZ:Article of the Week or CZ:New Draft of the Week. --Daniel Mietchen 04:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean just show a random approved article instead on the AOTW? Perhaps... but a lot of our AOTWs aren't approved articles at present. Caesar Schinas 06:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Daniel, I've commented your userpage inclusion above out, since it was slowing down page loading due to the number of videos. Caesar Schinas 08:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Commenting it out now is fine - it was just the first demo. What I have in mind is to have the approved articles there in addition to the AOTW/NDOTW display, though I wouldn't be against alternating the display of the latter two in the same place. However, the space on the left is not effectively used at present. --Daniel Mietchen 22:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this quote relevant?
The latest quote, added by USer:Anthony.Sebastian, reads as follows:

Is this relevant to creating a compentium of knowledge? All of our other quotes refer to knowledge directly. Also, this is rather longer than the others, though I don't know if that matters. Opinions?

Caesar Schinas 08:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * With all due respect to Anthony, it is an interesting quote, but it is not about knowledge as noted by Caesar.Milton Beychok 04:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * By writing, one feeds minds knowledge. In my opinion, the rotating quotes should encourage readers to share their knowledge, by writing for CZ.  I'll try to remedy the offending quote by searching for Susan Hockfield's orginal, the guts of the quote.  Anthony.Sebastian 03:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now re-cast the offending quote, removing Natalie Angier´s quote-within-a-quote, simply quoting neuroscientist Susan Hockfield directly, thereby shortening the submission.


 * The relevance of the rotating quotes depends on the goal of the quotes. When I initiated the feature, I intended the quotes to encourage visitors to the Welcome Page to join CZ, and share their knowledge through the writing/editing process.


 * The Hockfield quote I believe will challenge some readers to write, in order to see if they can transform three-dimensional, paralleled-processed experience into two-dimensional, linear narrative.


 * The quote itself indicates how an apposite sequence of words can convey a unique, insightful thought &mdash; part of the challenge to the prospective writer.


 * I consider it more relevant than some of the other quotes in the series. Anthony.Sebastian 22:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I still don't like it - it's not really relevant to creating a compendium of knowledge, and also it's not a proper sentence. But whatever - leave it if you disagree. Caesar Schinas 12:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would offer that to create a compendium of knowledge, one must write, that is, transform three-dimensional, paralleled-processed experience into two-dimensional, linear narrative. Still, since you seem strongly to dislike the quote, I'll muse a while then probably remove it. --Anthony.Sebastian 23:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't mind if you want to keep it; I just personally think it's somewhat less relevant than most of the other quotes. Caesar Schinas 06:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

love the new front page!
I think it looks great!!! Tom Kelly 00:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Caesar Schinas 12:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't "article/draft of the week" have titles?
Because its title (Ancient Celtic music) isn't displayed, it's difficult to figure out at first what the current article of the week is about. It begins: "The ancient Celts had a distinct culture, which is shown by their very sophisticated art work. The Hallstatt culture and especially the later La Tène culture are characterized by a high aesthetic level...." Three links, all red, but no mention of music until later in that second sentence. Bruce M. Tindall 20:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it has now &mdash; see here. --Daniel Mietchen 20:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In the News
The main page format looks pretty messed up on IE now that "In the News" has been added. It also probably shouldn't be above the blurbs about what Citizendium is and how to join. Perhaps it can go somewhere in the column containing the article and new draft of the week? Shamira Gelbman 22:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I apologize. I am usually pretty good about remembering to check the display on other browsers. That completely slipped my mind this time. I'll get right on that.Drew R. Smith 22:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just checked IE8, Opera, and Google Chrome, and it looks fine on all of them. Which version of IE are you using?


 * I actually tried to put it elswhere, but couldn't get it to format properly. Instead of being just below the last section on the left it ended up positioned just below the NDOTW but on the left side. From what I can see on my browser the blurbs are still visible below the "In The News" section, so anyone who wants to read it can just scroll down.Drew R. Smith 22:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My impression had been that we were going to see how this worked as a page; immediately putting it on the Welcome page, I think, should have more of a consensus among Citizens before we put it on our front door. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This computer's got IE 7.0.5730.11. The news section nearly completely dominates my screen and adds a huge amount of white space to the box with the "natural sciences," "social sciences," etc. links. In any case, I agree with Howard; I don't think this belongs on the welcome page unless and until there's more general agreement that it's a worthwhile feature to include there. Shamira Gelbman 00:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Edited to add: I just checked on IE 8 and it looks just as bad as it did in the older version. Shamira Gelbman 02:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that we need to have a discussion about what we want before we post it. The welcome page is already awfully cluttered; something will have to go.  I'm not necessarily saying the news section doesn't belong because it seems like a very nice innovation if it is kept up to date.  I just think we should be timid about making major changes to our main page.  --Joe Quick 02:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies if I was a little too forward. I was under the impression that adding it to the main page was part of the trial run. In any case, if we want it taken down, by all means do it.


 * Shamira, what skin are you using? It looked fine to me in IE8 on both pinkwich and monobook. Perhaps you could take a screenshot of the problems you are seeing?Drew R. Smith 09:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I posted a screenshot in the forums. Shamira Gelbman 14:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Demo version of CZ:News
I moved the news section from the welcome page to here. --Daniel Mietchen 09:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Some Changes
I have transcluded some portions of the mainpage that do not need to be physically located on the main page. The sections are now located at CZ:Navbar and CZ:Quote. This also allows anyone who wants either of the elements on their userpages to easily add it. This was done in an attempt to reduce the size of the mainpage and navigation time to the mainpage. Drew R. Smith 06:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * One other thing. How does the quote thing actually work? I thought it was supposed to change every hour, but it seems to change every time I navigate back to the mainpage. Is this a bug, or is this intentional? Drew R. Smith 06:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is intended. --Daniel Mietchen 07:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh. I had always been under the impression that it was supposed to change every hour. Why the constant changing? Drew R. Smith 07:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't CZ:Navbar rather be moved to Template: ? (I confess: I never noticed how often the quote changes.) Peter Schmitt 09:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually they both should be moved to the template namespace. Before I move both (I'm going to move navbar now) is there any reason you singled out navbar? I guess what I'm really wondering is, should we leave CZ:Quote as is? Drew R. Smith 09:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't mention CZ:Quote because it could (or even should) be edited by adding more quotes once in a while. They are transcluded content rather than a template. Peter Schmitt 10:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, makes sense. Drew R. Smith 10:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Article of the Week should be an approved article?
It was my understanding (gained from, well, somewhere) that the article of the week was to be an approved article. This week's article, Locality of reference, is not approved. If there is no existing requirement that the article of the week be an approved article, perhaps we should consider making it so, in order to consistently show our best work?

Or perhaps I'm missing something?&mdash;Thomas H. Larsen 04:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC) It's quite possible. I'm rather tired.


 * I'm not sure it ever had to be an approved article. I think one argument against this would be that without sufficient editors some excellent articles are not approved. Would we want to preclude those? Another argument is that an article on the home page will showcase articles close to approval and this might be enough to get some interest in pushing it over the top.  In general, we need to be careful to establish rules that only make sense in a very active community. Chris Day 05:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see your points, but, on the other hand, if approved articles are supposed to be one of the Citizendium's "shining jewels" it would seem to be logical to display one on the welcome page. The current system seems to be more Wikipedia-like in nature (authors and editors vote on whether an article appears to meet the necessary standards); there's not necessarily anything wrong, per se, with this style of selecting high-quality articles, but it runs counter to Citizendium tradition. :-) Thomas H. Larsen 05:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that once we hit a few articles being approved a week, then we should put approved articles only as AOTW. Until then, developed articles are fine. –Tom Morris 06:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

how long have these 2 articles been on the main page?
? Tom Kelly 18:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Too long. See also this forum thread. --Daniel Mietchen 22:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Call for illustrations
I just reverted this edit, since I think the Welcome Page (primarily aimed at outsiders) is the wrong place to put a prominent link to CZ:Illustration wanted. --Daniel Mietchen 00:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomenclature
Is it "Citizendium" (as in the intro) or "the Citizendium" in a later section? The latter makes me cringe. Would say "the Encyclopedia Brittanica"? Or "the Newsweek"? I didn't try to edit this page since I would expect it to be protected, and also I am new here. Huw Powell 03:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, dearie me... Yes, i know. Well, I tried to get a consensus to drop the definite article when we were struggling with the charter, but failed. So, some people write "The Citizendium" and others not... There are countries with the same problem -- most notably, "The Netherlands" which many people write as Netherlands... Martin Baldwin-Edwards 03:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Citizendium" means "The Citizens' Compendium". It would be incorrect (or at least very awkward) to say, "Write at Citizen's Compendium," so probably one should not say, "Write at Citizendium," either. Thomas H. Larsen 05:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Citizendium" was Larry's idea, I think for the reasons Thomas mentions. But it never really caught on, and most people do not use it, perhaps because 'Citizendium' has the same metre as 'Wikipedia', with which, for some reason, it is sometimes compared. Ro Thorpe 14:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion
I have to agree with Doctor Dark at Rashwick: "...the casual visitor would expect that the buttons labeled "Natural Sciences", "Arts" and the like would take them to portals or lists of articles under those headings. Ha! Tricked you, sucker! They go to organizational tables for workgroup structure and procedures." Ro Thorpe 15:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, fair point. I also agree that our section headings are much too large.Gareth Leng 16:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've decided to drop them pending a rewrite of their contents (which I am alas not qualified to undertake), while moving the donations banner to the top to see how that looks (one of Milton's suggestions below). Ro Thorpe 00:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the donations banner is too prominent now and would prefer to keep it at the lower end of the page, or even to relocate it to the sidebar. --Daniel Mietchen 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Daniel, relegating the donations banner to the sidebar will mean removing most of the text explaining that we still have an ongoing need for donations. About 30% of the donors to our donation drive were visitors to CZ (i.e., non-members), and relegating the banner to the bottom of the page means that many visitors might never see the donations banner. I think it is important that the donation banner be quite prominent on the Welcome page until such time as we have a permanent solution to our hosting costs and or until we find a major benefactor. Milton Beychok 06:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I still think the buttons' destinations should be changed. Ro Thorpe 16:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can/should this not be done? Ro Thorpe 17:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Still no response, even while we're all looking at this page? I'd do it myself if I knew how. Ro Thorpe 23:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The urgently needed donation drive has ended and exceeded our expectations.
The urgently needed donation drive raised $3,710, which is more than was expected and is enough to pay our hosting costs for about 9 months ... by which time we should have found a permanent hosting solution. I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who made our donation drive a success.

Therefore, the banner urging donations has now been removed from all of the CZ pages and replaced by a single banner on the Welcome page.

Would the banner on the Welcome page perhaps be better placed at the top of the left-hand section (just above the An encyclopedia project—and more! section) ... or perhaps at the top of the right-hand section (just above the Article of the Week) ? Please offer your comments. Milton Beychok 20:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Added intro
I added a longer intro at the TOP of the page for all to read. The previous intro had nothing telling what Citizendium was about. Feel free to add some keywords or to expand it. Keywords are important. I try to add them to my personal web pages. My kids have taught me well.Mary Ash 16:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add back academic based articles as that is what CZ wants. I did not write peer reviewed articles, although I could have written that in a way as editors do approve articles, what makes CZ different is the desire of high caliber academic articles. Not swill found at other sites. BTW my we want you was an attempt to make this plea a bit light hearted.Mary Ash 18:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Fixed Mary's incorrect indentation. Also, I agree that Hayford's version of the page introduction is much better than Mary's version ... and I agree with his using "Author" and "Editor" rather than "author" and "editor". Mary, for once, please don't start a revert war or another messy confrontation. Just bow out gracefully and let it go. Milton Beychok 23:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi to Mary: I know you were going for 'a bit light hearted', I didn't care for it myself, but others might agree with you and not me, and that's fine.
 * Just to clarify: normally, you would be right about the Author->author issue, but in this sense, Hayford is distinguishing a particular CZ use of Editor and Author, so he's right to use capitals. Make sense?
 * Aleta Curry 00:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Light-heartedness in actual text, particularly the Main Page, is actually vandalism. I have reported it formally to the Constabulary and asked that Mary be banned for vandalism and disruptive behavior. Hayford Peirce 00:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you actually mean the continued reverts, not a mistake or a joke. In this case, I think in the first instance Mary meant well. We can cut her some slack. Aleta Curry 01:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

((unindent))For all to read this is what I posted and Gareth later lightly edited by italicizing the light-hearted i.e. friendly statement. Truth be told I emailed this statement to Gareth before posting it and he knew about it. I read his forum comments and went here and posted my intro. Some how being friendly and inviting should not be a bannable offense.

My posting and Gareth's light editing below:

Welcome to Citizendium From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium (Difference between revisions) Jump to: navigation, search Revision as of 16:54, 13 January 2011 (edit) Mary Ash (Talk | contribs) (Added a welcome message as an intro. Hope this helps!) ← Previous diff

Welcome to Citizendium! Citizendium is an academically based tight-knit community that encourages high standards of writing through collaboration between editor and author. We welcome people from all walks of life who desire to share their knowledge and expertise freely by writing well researched articles. Please read through our easy registration procedures, that are designed to encourage high caliber articles, then register. Or to borrow a line from some military sources: We want you!

Revision as of 17:19, 13 January 2011 (edit) (undo) Gareth Leng (Talk | contribs) Next diff → Line 2: 	Line 2: Welcome to Citizendium! Citizendium is an academically based tight-knit community that encourages high standards of writing through collaboration between editors and authors. We welcome people from all walks of life who want to share their knowledge and expertise freely by writing well researched articles. Please read through our easy registration procedures, then join us. To borrow a line from some military sources: We want you!

And the comment about being light-hearted i.e. was this statement: Please read through our easy registration procedures, that are designed to encourage high caliber articles, then register. Or to borrow a line from some military sources: We want you!

The "We want you" was a play on words from the old military recruiting posters that said "Uncle Sam Wants You!".

I will let the Constables decide if this was offensive but I think not. I was trying to write a warm, inviting and friendly intro to a place I've tried to devote my efforts to help. I truly want to see the under dog aka Citizendium succeed. I strongly believe in competition whether it be in the business world or on the Internet. It's always good to have alternatives.Mary Ash 01:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Constable comment
Hi All, the new intro looks good currently. I see that it has taken a convoluted pathway to get here, but if that's what it takes, I suppose we'll consider it successful. We are all authors on this page, so we'll have to work on the popular consensus model as a default method. Mary, you appear to have reverted what seems to be a popular consensus about Authors and Editors, so it looks like you've been out-numbered. Leave that as it is. Don't take things so personally, nobody's words have been left untouched. Professionalism still holds, so please avoid the harsh rhetoric in the edit summaries. I don't have Dark Knight rights on this wiki. Most of all, have fun, ya'll, that's why we're here. D. Matt Innis 01:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Tight-knit and scholarly
The term tight-knight means small versus large as WP. Scholarly to mean academic which is what I originally wrote. Academic does not have the same connotations, I believe, as scholarly. CZ is aiming for academic quality articles. You could almost write peer reviewed articles as a series of editors actually act in the role as a panel to review them. Finally, the reverts made by me yesterday were NOT an actionable offense. I removed less than 20 words both times I tried to edit the article and I LEFT professional talk page messages stating my reasons for doing so. I also left edit page summaries in the page history. For now I will not add any edits as the intro looks pretty good. I do believe there should be something inserted about academic or peer reviewed articles so potential contributors know why CZ is different.Mary Ash 15:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no offence involved here, it's just that you seemed to revert the same change, made by two different people, twice in swift succession. Your intentions were good, but the front page material is sensitive, and your double reversion triggered a brusque reponse that could have been phrased more gently. Let it pass; you shouldn't have reverted swiftly twice, you should have been treated more politely. We don't get everything right always.Gareth Leng 18:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Margins
The left hand background has a very large bottom margin, which displaces the text to far down. Unfortunately I have no idea how to fix that.Gareth Leng 18:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Grammar question in Join us section
The following statement currently occurs in the Join us section:


 * "You can discuss any articles on their Talk page."

Not being absolutely sure about the grammar and not wanting to make even a minor (and possibly incorrect) edit to the main page, I thought I'd ask: should this not read something like "You can discuss any of the articles on their respective Talk page" or maybe "You can discuss any article on its Talk page"?

Hope I'm not being too picky. :-)

James F. Perry 18:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No, you're absolutely correct. I'll fix it. Hayford Peirce 18:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You also should have felt free to change it :) D. Matt Innis 19:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Colour of the donations box
Daniel, you reverted my edit of the donations box. Could you please explain how the page was broken? In my browser, Chrome/Webkit, it looks just fine. Also, all I did was to change some colour codes. I can't understand how that could cause an error. Regardless, it would be helpful if you described the error. Thanks. Johan A. Förberg 23:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This conversation between Milton and myself is relevant here. Johan A. Förberg 23:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Welcome page was inaccessible for a few minutes, and I temporarily reverted your last edit to see if that was the problem. It wasn't, so I went back to your last version, 5 min before you posted the comment above. More details. --Daniel Mietchen 01:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Why we contribute
I added a link to CZ:Why_I_contribute_to_CZ on the main page. This is a nice collection of stories that doesn't seem to be linked to or accessible anywhere, you just have to kinda stumble upon it like I did. Eric Clevinger 21:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Good idea, Eric, and your addition to it was refreshing as well! Thanks! D. Matt Innis 00:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Listening to music helps to edit
For extra boost when editing I recommend the Adams: Harmonielehre album.

(Chunbum Park 23:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC))
 * Harmonielehre: Part I
 * Harmonielehre: Part II. The Anfortas Wound
 * Harmonielehre Part: III. Meister Eckhardt and Quackie
 * Tromba Lontana
 * The Chairman Dances: Foxtrot for Orchestra

Arab Spring
There is now an updated and more readable version in place of the version shown.

Is an update possible? Nick Gardner 07:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Updated to the most recent version - unfortunately, the links to the addendum page(s) don't seem to work on the main page. Anton Sweeney 21:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please fix as soon as possible
There is a spelling mistake (not mine) in the Featured Article. 'Parsemonious' should read 'parsimonious'. I would fix this (and have done so in the article itself), but I don't know how. (Something to do with transcluding, I think...) Ro Thorpe 14:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Ro Thorpe 23:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sister project?
This edit more than two years ago added the current description of WatchKnow as CZ's "sister project". Do we actually have any relationship with them? I'm not aware of any. I do vaguely remember some talk that possibly CZ and WatchKnow might collaborate in some way, but that obviously came to nothing. Should this description be removed? Indeed, should we be mentioning WatchKnow on our front page at all? John Stephenson 09:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be great if WatchKnow shared a link mentioning Citizendium as a sister project. But anyways since we are not getting funding from WatchKnow's donor I don't think we are sister projects after all. (Chunbum Park 13:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC))


 * "should we be mentioning WatchKnow on our front page at all?" It's interesting to note that Wikinfo mentions Wikipedia, Citizendium and Knowino on its main page, in accordance with its philosophy of openness to all points of view. Worth thinking about? Peter Jackson 14:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Chunbum raises the valuable point that WatchKnow don't link to us, which I think is reason enough to remove the mention of their site. I also think it's misleading anyway, as it implies the same people responsible for WatchKnow are also running CZ. John Stephenson 02:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm going to remove "sister project" but keep the link, mentioning that Larry is involved in WatchKnow. John Stephenson 09:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)