User talk:Howard C. Berkowitz

Chiropractic Guidelines
I found one of the links that we were talking about,LBP guidelines. This is the newest version that basically is the evolution of the Mercy Guidelines. There are more - a couple for nonmusculoskeletal conditions that you might be interested in as well. Especially notice the last three or four pages where it talks about treatment frequencies and red flags. Depending on the doctor, he/she can run the tests to help rule in or out those conditions, or can refer them to someone else to do it. When you talk about Integrative medicine from our perspective, it basically means that there is less need for us to do it ourselves. D. Matt Innis 20:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the current review of the literature for non-NMS conditions for chiropractic care (not just spinal manipulation) which might include other CAM techniques like massage, etc.. I doubt that acupuncture or homeopathy is considered in these though. D. Matt Innis 20:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

defunct workgroups
Your said: "several defunct food- and agriculture-related workgroups". Which do you have in mind? Chris Day 19:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * IIRC, at various times I've seen Agriculture, Food Sciences, and vaguely remember something like Culinary Arts. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The first two are still there. The latter i do not remember. Chris Day 04:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

One of yours?
D. Matt Innis 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, mine. From the SABR baseball group that I chatted up. Hayford Peirce 23:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * HaHa! Of course! and an MD, too!  Good job Hayford! D. Matt Innis 23:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

New user User:David E. Mann
Howard, the latest new user lists himself as a military author. I just thought that you might be interested. Milton Beychok 06:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Dimitrie Paciurea
I believe you asked me to let you know when I add articles. I have added a stub on Dimitrie Paciurea. - Joseph L. Mabel 05:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

While I'm on Bucharest, also brought across Casa Capşa (historic restaurant, famous literary haunt a century or so ago). - Joseph L. Mabel 05:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, please do ask me questions if anything I've written in the articles is at all unclear. - Joseph L. Mabel 05:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Given I'm a devoted cook, as a few people here are, that sounds interesting! Even if you don't have a unifying article, perhaps a series of these articles might be a starting point, for someone else, on Romanian culture. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

antivrial guilt
Geez Howard, your recent work makes me feel guilty that I never got around to finishing my antiviral drug pages! Is there a drug to alleviate my symptoms? David E. Volk 21:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

did you see this guy?
Maybe some collaboration! D. Matt Innis 03:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll like these quotes
Got this from a book review: Goldacre's prose always reads well and pulls together his thoughts on homoeopathy, nutritionists, Brain Gym, the Aqua Detox footbath and other "bollocks du jour", the publicity for which depends largely on gullible media publishing arrant nonsense, mostly by rehashing "garbage in" press releases into "garbage out" articles; churnalism, not journalism, as Nick Davies puts it."

And the related: The people who run the media are humanities graduates with little understanding of science, who wear their ignorance as a badge of honour. Secretly, deep down, they perhaps resent the fact that they have denied themselves access to the most significant developments in the history of Western thought from the past 200 years."

Both in an article from the Times Higher Education website. Chris Day 22:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Hello
Howard, I will of course take you up on your offer. After all that is what the collaborative effort is about!! Thank you.

I am going to spend a little time getting used to the system here and then.... the work begins Ivan Kelly 16:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

IRA
Just so you know Howard, when we see an edit summary saying 'IRA' in Ireland, we tend to find cover! I answered on my talk page. Denis Cavanagh 03:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And in the US it's all about retirement. I have never got used to the American version. Chris Day 06:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah...but we Americans seek cover when we see 'IRS'. Howard C. Berkowitz 07:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

IRA Article
I put the IRA article on my watchlist and will be ready to help out when its up and going. What books will you be using for it? Denis Cavanagh 20:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember..
... to refresh the talk page before adding new material, you accidentally wiped out two of my edits. Of course you may have found them intolerable or your IP has taken over your identity. It begins. Chris Day 14:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I see you removed your own comment too? Was that your intention? Chris Day 14:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I fumblefingered and tried to explain in another note. Very insomniac night, and now I am caffeine deprived. If you can make sense of the logs and not lose the detailed information I did put in on more questionable allegations by a study author, feel free. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you ever sleep?
Howard, I see you active all through our European day, do you ever sleep?--Paul Wormer 10:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sleep is for the weak! Denis Cavanagh 13:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And the non-insomniac. If you see me active in what would be the U.S. early morning, either I've been up all night, or got a very good night's sleep and woke up early. I'm in the GMT-5 time zone, actually very near the easternmost part of the U.S. There were times, incidentally, where I routinely worked with colleagues in the U.K. and Sweden, so I'd often actually work on a more European schedule, given everyone was working from home.


 * If I have no other commitments, you'll be less likely to see good material from me between 2100-2300 European Central Time, as that tends to be the time during the workday when I feel least energized.


 * There are many nuances of whether this is a good or bad thing, but I sometimes find it hard to sleep when there is unanswered Wonkology. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Approval of AN-
Howard, Eric posted that paragraph we've been waiting for on the AN-1 Talk page. Could you please work that into the article somehow? I have extended the Approval date by one day to Jan. 28 and I will change the version to be approved just as soon as you have worked his material into the article. Thanks, Milton Beychok 09:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (to be repeated on both our user pages) Milt, as soon as I have ingested a bit more coffee, I shall do so. Not complaining; it wasn't quite what I was expecting. I assumed he was going to explain a bit about it as a terminology example in the specific article context. (i.e., in "TTC-56 (V)1", the first means that it's movable from fixed site to fixed site while the second T means..."). Incorrectly anticipating, I wrote a developing article pn the AN/TTC-56, and also some of the system engineering concepts that don't have AN- designations, such as the Warfighter Information Network–Tactical, into which it fits. I'm going to use his language as more of a case study in AN-, but as a different sort of case study that also explains AN- systems can be components in systems-of-systems.


 * As an aside here, I'm talking about the general Engineering subspecialty of Systems Engineering, of a military flavor. That raises a question to you: to what extent do modern chemical engineers work with people called systems engineers, who look especially at the control systems, but also, say, the logistical interfaces between the fixed manufacturing plant and transportation engineering? In some respects, I think of systems engineering as something common to all engineering disciplines, but, especially in military context, it is the field of ensuring compatibility among subsystems belonging to different engineering disciplines. While, for example, a mining engineer might look at an oil well, a transportation/civil/mechanical engineer at the means of getting the crude to the refiner, and a chemical engineer at refining it, a system engineer might be looking at the handoffs and interface standards. Many large military development projects are run by systems engineering centers, either government or context. I think there's an article here and may start a stub today, along with some military aspects including "transformation", the conscious movement between generations of interconnected systems.


 * As yet another aside, as I get more into some of the military systems engineering, I'm going to explore something that might yet be a means of getting support for nonspecialist engineering editors. I do a number of things as what might be called an engineering journalist, so while I might be talking to the "public affairs" arm of a manufacturer or integrator, those people are accustomed to inquiries from the trade press, not general news media, and can be willing to do fact-checking. In many cases, they will do an email response, or sometimes one by phone, but, if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance they are manipulating the article, they don't want that published. Now, for what I'm going to suggest, something of an honor system is involved, which is also one of the reasons I'm hesitant to have instant editors that start ruling without much experience with the CZ process. Hypothetically, if I asked for approval on some military systems engineering, and forwarded either an email from the technical public affairs people, or wrote an email documenting the telephone call and giving point of contact, would that give you more confidence? Wearing my engineering journalist hat, I would consider it completely normal for my publishing-type editor to make random quality calls just to such a point of contact as I mention; I'm literally now hoping to start on a project where I will do a series of specialized computer articles for a broader yet specialized electronics trade magazine, and I'd certainly expect the editor might verify some of my interviews. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Howard, my career as a chemical engineer was mostly in the process design of are refineries, petrochemical plants, natural gas processing and power plants. In those areas, systems engineers (by my definition) were non-existent. We had "instrument engineers" (or "instrumentation engineers") who were the experts in how to specify/design/purchase/maintain the plant control systems.


 * To my understanding, a "systems engineer" establishes work methods and work flow methods to improve worker productivity, especially in work involving repetitive manual operations (i.e., assembly line work, packaging work, bulk clerical filing, etc.). Such engineers just weren't needed in refineries, petrochemical plants, natural gas processing and power plants. (Any systems engineer reading this: please excuse my definition of your work if it is incorrect or too limited.)


 * As for this question of yours: Hypothetically, if I asked for approval on some military systems engineering, and forwarded either an email from the technical public affairs people, or wrote an email documenting the telephone call and giving point of contact, would that give you more confidence?. Take a look at the Talk page of my Conventional coal-fired power plant article and you will note that I asked a good friend and chemical engineering colleague of mine (who had never heard of Citizendium) to review the article. He did a very thorough job and provided a good number of edits, almost all of which I accepted and implemented. I then documented his review on the article's Talk page and credited his work. Although Paul Wormer had also provided a good review, I still wanted the viewpoint of a fellow chemical engineer whose career had been in the same field as mine and that just wasn't yet to be had in Citizendium. I did not provide a point of contact on the basis that, if anyone asked for it, I would then provide it by personal email (rather than providing it publically on the Talk page).


 * Has this been of help? Milton Beychok 19:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. Military systems engineering, however, is very much more than workflow; they deal with process compatibility and interfaces. The term is also widely used in communications engineering; one of my standard textbooks of communications systems engineering tends to focus on both capacity planning and compatibility. You now have me interested in checking engineering school criteria, on how they define systems engineering.


 * In the short term, at least in Engineering, I suspect we are going to have to use such external reviewers to help the active Editors in the approval process. Luckily, I know just enough about matters related to air pollution and chemical engineering to be dangerous helpful. (One must have context. My air pollution knowledge variously comes from chemical warfare, but also from growing up in northern New Jersey, where we would comment on the strange smell of pure air).


 * Increasingly, I tend to put communications systems in Engineering, especially things such as classic radio and telephony, but modern ones go into Computers as well. Aviation seems logical enough there; I know a good deal about electronics there, a bit about rocket propulsion, and very little serious aerodynamics.


 * I still want a train engineer. Choochoo! Howard C. Berkowitz 19:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, you might find it useful to read Control system, Open loop control, Closed loop control and Control valve. They might give you more insight into what I meant when I wrote above about plant control and what instrument engineers did. Milton Beychok 08:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Value of Networks
Howard, I am critiquing the networks article. But before I post anything, I am going to learn more about the CZ structure on article writing. There is a feel, structure and culture within CZ and I want to get a better feel for it. Thanks for the head's up on the article. Good to get started. Oh I am lay on networks within the communications industry. I am looking to see how it feels for someone who wants to learn. Ivan Kelly 14:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Department of Homeland Security
Howard, you created the subject article on November 9, 2008 without any subpages or Metadata template. It has sat there since without becoming a CZ article. So I just finished adding the subpages templates the Main Article and to the Talk page. I also created the Metadata template and the Definition subpage. And I also re-named it as U.S. Department of Homeland Security to be consistent with the naming of the other U.S. government cabinet-level departments.

You might want to check any other articles that you created in early November of 2008 to see if they have been made into CZ articles. Regards, Milton Beychok 09:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Milt (and Chris and Hayford and whoever else reads this), you raise an excellent point about "becoming a CZ article." I've become much more compulsive about doing subpages and such very early, but I had been operating under all of our introductory materials about "how to create an article" suggesting this wasn't really needed.


 * Now, I understand all the things that break when that hasn't been done, just as I see orphaning as another major problem. Just as an example of second-order effects, Larry was concerned about reaching the 10,000 article mark. On checking, though, articles without metadata aren't being counted. Once everything in "uncategorized articles" or the like is gone, we may have more articles when we think. Every day, I try to put in metadata for at least 5 of my own, and 2 others not my own, that are on that list.


 * Subpages aren't easy, and I certainly don't want to scare off new users. It's harder than it needs to be: why require a user explicitly to create and save a talk page, once cluster formation starts? Yes, there are times when it is appropriate to put things on the talk page, but those are the exception rather than the rule. Some simplifications will need programmer resources.


 * Milt is right that things aren't CZ articles without clusters, although the "lemma problem" does identify things that perhaps should not have full clusters. How do we solve this conflict? We don't have the people to go around and tidy up all the subpages. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Howard, I may be wrong, but the only way I have found to access the Metadata template of an article is from the Talk subpage ... so that is the reason for needing to create the Talk subpage. Maybe that could be done automatically by the system? Milton Beychok 17:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Two issues here. First, there is a sneaky way to reach existing data, which I just confirmed. The trick is that the metadata page (e.g., TROJAN SPIRIT/Metadata) isn't in mainspace like all the other subpages of the cluster, but in Template space: Template: TROJAN SPIRIT/Metadata.


 * Second, even if it were necessary to have a talk page to reach it, why not just automatically create the talk page when the metadata page is created, rather than having to save the metadata page, click on create talk page, and then save the (usually empty) resulting talk page? Howard C. Berkowitz 18:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, there are several categories that are unique to the talk page (all house keeping ones for starters). As to automatically creating the talk page, if only, but how? Chris Day 03:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Without knowing what is in MediaWiki and what is in template,here's an approach. I'm guessing that when one saves a mainpage with  set, there's some local scope variable that carries the page name &mdash; there has to be, since the metadata knows what it's being named and if there's a conflict.


 * At some point when metadata are saved, there's a prompt to create the talk page. My first question would be if when the mainpage were saved, both the metadata and talkpage routines were simultaneously invoked -- that assumes the language allows parallel execution. If not, one could go to a level of indirection and create a script that sequentially invokes metadata, saves, and after that, pipes an empty page to the talk page creator and saves it. I must get around to learning PHP, rather than just glancing at a manual. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * At present everything is in the template. When I wrote the templates I had assumed it was a temporary template, more a feasibility study, and from there the monster has grown.  I thought that once the functionality was clear a real programmer would implement a solution involving all the things that cannot be done with a template.  Primary ones being a user friendly interface for entering metadata, preferably involving drop down menus to avoid typo's and a one click option that creates the whole cluster. Chris Day 04:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could point me to the template source. Here's a key question: when the user saves the metadata template, what code triggers the prompt for the talk page? Could we look at scripting that? Howard C. Berkowitz 04:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Be warned, it's messy. There is a hierarchy of templates, all originating from the subpages template, that I have tried to document on the following page: Subpages/doc. There are three different templates that can request that a talk page be created, Approval footer, metadata2 and Article Specific. All three use the same simple code:

I'm not sure how you would fire up a script from a template. Not to mention, I don't know how to write a script. Chris Day 04:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me suggest how it would work in a Unixish/Linuxish environment, which may not remotely be applicable to a URL-triggered HTML mdeo. Let's say there is a command CreateTalk. Ignoring the syntax needed to introduce BASEPAGENAME, writing

createtalk
 * on a command line makes it take its input from the "standard input", or keyboard.

createtalk <cannedinput
 * would, however, substitute the file "cannedinput" for the keyboard. Could action=edit&preload, I wonder, be at some level where one can override the input?


 * That still might not automate saving the page, although the creation and saving pretty well have to be primitives in MediaWiki. Howard C. Berkowitz 09:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Short articles again
Do you remember where we iscussed this for the first time, and second and third. I can't find any of them but I do have some memories of the conversations. Also, see here: User_talk:Russell_D._Jones. Chris Day 16:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If I understand the subject, see CZ Talk: Usability. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

blew past 9300
Someone must be adding subpages to the uncheckd list category of articles! Chris Day


 * Or is it the coffee? Howard, do you ever sleep?  Jones
 * LOL! I just saw that this was covered above!! -- Jones


 * I frequently commit insomnia. The doctors recommend that if I can't fall asleep in 20 minutes, to get up and do something. Actually, there are patterns if you look more closely than you probably want to look.


 * It would be nice to be able to check the article count in real time; I'm guessing how many I'm "adding" simply through creating metadata. In other cases, especially with some of the military and medical materials, short related articles keep popping up. In particular with military hardware, it's sometimes necessary to put in more short articles so there are clearly 3 or more links to and from each article; electronics get very intertwined. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Metadata updates
Howard you asked on CZ Talk:How to edit an article if some pages need to have changes in order to update the templates. This is correct from what I have been told. Some of the templates only cycle after the page they are on changes (adding a single space is sufficient for this). Jones 23:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think i have a fix for this in the future. Variables in our clusters are all controlled from the metadata page.  Therefore, all categories should live on the metadata page so everything is updated correctly with each edit to the metadata template. Unfortunately there is one thing I need to fix.  Any category placed on the template page will show up in the category list as Template:Article name/Metadata.  All I want to show up the Article name. See the discussion I had on Larry's talk page. Chris Day 00:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand how that affects categories. Will these changes cause the live article counts to be changed, including by changing status to less than 4? Howard C. Berkowitz 00:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Short articles
I noticed that Nick is writing some excellent short articles on his Great Depression/Tutorials page. I stole one for Ben Bernanke as a test for the short article concept.

I also set up the Sewall Wright article as a lemma, in this case the article is blank except for the subpages template. The definition is transcluded to the article and this means there is no red link when using the R template and also avoids the use of a redirect to the definition page. Having saif this, I wonder if the lemma template could add a redirect, I'll have to test that (excuse me thinking aloud here). I still need to work on the R template as the link is italicised (due to the lack of metadata) but I can change the rules for the R template to make it a regular blue link. See what we have below right now for the two R templates:

Note that the Lemma template is placed by the subpages template. The rule is that no metadata exists and there is a definition page, in such a case the error templates do not kick in (the ones that normally ask for metadata). Let me know what modifications would make this more useful for you. Chris Day 07:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, a redirect cannot be placed by the template. Chris Day 08:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Woke up early and saw this; let me make some observations that may be cancelled by more sleep. First, this is very close to what I see as needed.


 * I think I understand what is happening in Sewall Wright, since the article and definition displays are identical. It is not clear, however, what is happening in Ben Bernanke, since while it does have "transcluded from definition", the definition and article are not identical, which to me defines the functionality' lemma/short article.


 * Second, looking at the syntax of the Sewall Wright page, in edit mode, if I didn't know what was being done, I would be very confused (refs: Gene Wilder in Blazing Saddles, Barack Obama at the recent Alfalfa Club dinner). If one is doing "short articles", would it be possible to have, when Sewall Wright is edited, or , which otherwise has the same semantics there as  ?


 * One minor suggestion: when it is being done deliberately, it should be as transparent as possible to a reader, but not an author. A reader, therefore, doesn't need to know something was transcluded from a definition, but an author does.


 * If it is technically possible to do so, I would not put the "transcluded from definition" as a visible label on the page as seen by readers. I would, however, put edit-mode-commented text in the article body:
 * No: Transcluded from definition
 * Yes:


 * Thinking a little more broadly, might this approach be relevant even where you now use blue italics in the R-template? There are, I suspect, more readers who are confused because they don't understand what blue italics mean, or even readers who do know what they mean but get no useful information from them.


 * This is especially true if the blue italics are coming from something quite legitimate, such as a definition on a redirect-only. As an example, the APG-70 is a real military radar and has an article with metadata. The APQ-180 is simply a repackaging of the APG-70 for a specific aircraft, and there's nothing much to say besides that, which is perfectly appropriate for redirect/definition.




 * A number of recent comments indicate that metadata is simply not for beginners, even beginning authors. The lack of metadata shouldn't shout at people who know little or nothing about it, or are in no position to do anything about it. Putting the metadata warnings in edit mode comments might be a compromise for some of the situations. Howard C. Berkowitz 12:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Sewall Wright one was the lemma example. The Ben Bernanke one was a version with a little more info than one would expect in a definition.  But still not really enough to warrant metadata. I'll incorporate you suggestions above and see how it looks after that. Chris Day 21:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Laughing...how often have I felt guilty on putting more than one sentence in a definition? Ahhhhh....guilt. Anyway, there's short article and lemma?Howard C. Berkowitz 21:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess there could be. Especially useful for the verbose ;) With regard to the transparency there is no way to show the lemma template in edit mode. Beside the whole point of the subpages template it is try and make things less confusing.  The idea being one template works on all pages.  The layout decisions are thus made by the template not manually.  This means we reduce user error and have a predictable layout. Chris Day 21:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Should we assume that anyone who knows how to use metadata will not be shocked by seeing a page with nothing but  on it? Actually, I'm now a little confused -- where does one indicate that a piece of writing (avoiding terms) is to be treated as a lemma, not a full cluster? Howard C. Berkowitz 21:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're confused? I'm just following orders!  Don't panic... Don't panic...
 * If i recall, you didn't like the red links on the related articles page. We started by redirecting to an appropriate section in another article, however, this was not suitable for all cases. We then mused at the possibility of very short articles, like a definition, but then realised that we would effectively be duplicating the definition (and we need a definition for the R template). Obviously it makes no sense to replicate an article at the article name and the defintion. Obviously we could redirect to the definition from the article. But we can also use the subpages template to activate the lemma function on articles that have no metadata but do have a definition.  But when would this kick in.  Simple (but I have not finished this yet), if a term is used in the R template and there is a definition, the red link can be clicked and the subpages temaplte preloaded onto the edit page (we could also have a small explanation that is commented out. Thus any red links with a defintion can easily be made blue.
 * OK, that's my version, is the sort of where you were going? Clearly much tweaking is still needed. Chris Day 21:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Standardize lemma
When and what format are we going to go with? I wonder if we should push this through as a proposal along with disambiguation pages that also need some standardisation with regard to templates (a side conversation I have been having with Milt). In both cases, ideally we stick the subpages at the top and program our decided standard into that template such that the standard format just appears. Users don't need to remember the correct format, just stick the standard template at the top of the page. Chris Day 15:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Physical examination
Please see changes at physical examination. You have good content, but can we shorten it without loosing meaning? Feel free to edit may edits and restore what you see as essential. - Robert Badgett 14:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Malware
Hi Howard, I wanted to stop by and say thank you for not only giving the Malware article some category sprucing up (I never got that far at the other place), but also taking the time to drop a note on the talk page. To be honest, I kind of expected to come back to find the article either deleted or at least tagged for future deletion. It's so nice to see actual constructive assistance, and I wanted to express my appreciation for that. Ched Davis 05:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, let me know how the hand warmer training goes, maybe there's hope for a certain dog I know that thinks she belongs in her masters lap when he's trying to computer related things. ;) Ched Davis 05:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, OK, I have a couple questions as I get up to speed here, and please forgive the the WP lingo as I adjust. By the way - that proggie for training the cat to stay off the keyboard was pretty neat .. I enjoyed that link.
 * 1) Should I avoid naming specific products (like Microsoft, Malwarebytes, winfixer, etc.) when writing articles.
 * 2) Would it be better to fully develop an individual article or two rather than create several stubs. I ask this because I see this thing about Sunday being an encouragement to add to the info here.
 * 3) Are we allowed to write outside our professions? ... for example, even though I'm in the computer field, am I allowed to write about movies or TV shows?

Thank you for your patience and guidance, ;) Ched Davis 23:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Almost forgot - should I avoid the "How To" type of information? (ex. How to remove malware) .. Thanks, Ched Davis 23:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Mention products or malware when they illustrate a concept, rather than being a specific how-to on anything current. For example, I discussed smurfs under amplification attack. I might discuss Slammer as an example of a worm and countermeasures. These share the aspect of being well-patched vulnerabilities, and also relatively straightforward to explain.


 * As far as stub vs. full article, there's no real rule. My advice, when you are starting, is to do several small articles, so it gives you the feel of linking among them, and, when you are ready, doing Metadata, Definitions, and Related Articles.


 * Sure, write about anything about which you have reasonable knowledge.


 * Glad to help on this; I'm happy to have some collaborative work, which doesn't depend on being an Editor. Indeed, feel free to look at/edit some of my work. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

problem article
Hi Howard, I've created a bit of a problem. After I added some to the malware article, I clicked on the link for virus (it was red) and started an article for that - the problem is - there was already an article started. The problem is/was that the link virus (computer) vs. virus (computers) - the "s" in computers. I'll stop where I am on the virus article, being new here - I'm not sure how you want to proceed. Either just delete the one I created, attempt a merge, and/or move? I don't have any experience in creating redirects either. I'll gladly defer to your choice in this - sorry for the added workload. I'll gladly attempt to do the merge if that's what is preferable. ;)? Ched Davis 07:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Accidental release source terms need re-approval.
Howard, if memory serves me right, you were the Editor that approved Accidental release source terms. I have just revised one section considerably: to replace the list of parameters in HTML with a list in LaTeX, to add many CZ links, and to make sure that it was completely consistent with another article (Choked flow). Accidental release source terms was one of the articles I wrote early in my CZ days and it needed the updating that I just gave it.

I think that Accidental release source terms now needs re-approval. Would you please nominate it for re-approval? Thanks, Milton Beychok 20:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem, but what are the mechanics? Do another nomination on the Draft? Howard C. Berkowitz 20:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you apply the same procedure to the Draft that you used before when you nominated the article for approval. Milton Beychok 20:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

DNS article
Per your request, I will try to review at least the base DNS article. Expect it will take me till the weekend or so.Pat Palmer 18:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Howard, I have started. I know it's going to be difficult for you to allow me to "mess with" your baby, so I beg your patience.  It will take me a while to get things settled down in my mind, and I am still in the process of reading the article for the very first time.  So, I guess I'm requesting you to hold back until I've made it away into the article, unless you think I'm making a dreadful mistake, in which case, of course you must argue with me :-)Pat Palmer 14:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Asking for your reaction to the revised intro of DNS
Howard, would you please take a look at the revised introduction for DNS? If you agree with the summary that I have got there, then I can use that to shape the rest of the material around the goals stated at the end of the introduction. You have provided such a marvelous wealth of information; I feel that mainly what's needed is hardnosed copy-editing and guiding the whole thing around the goals stated (explaining the mechanics of DNS, and keeping it quite distinct from search engine technology). A simple yes or no will suffice (but if no, then a short reason). Thanks in advance!Pat Palmer 16:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The only things I'd quibble about is TOC placement, and the issue of delayed binding at the beginning. Do remember I don't consider myself a DNS specialist and am not all that emotionally invested; routing and IP would be another matter.


 * Bluntly, I'm concerned with getting several computers article to the minimum necessary and sufficient level for Approval, at least the top-level articles. It is my hope that might be a stimulus to more participation, if Computers authors are seeing Approvals. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

move order
You'll find it easier if you move the metadata first. You see the test link in the talk page header? Near language variant. That will start you on the right track (I'm still testing it). After moving metadata move the article talk and subpages in one move (template at top of the new metadata will help with that. Then you need to rename the metadata's pagename field (again the template at the top, in this case on the moved articles page, will give a convenient link). Only two of the old pages need to be deleted. The old approval page, if it exists and the old metadata page. The bug in the move template that appears at the top of the page during a move is that if there is no approval page in the original cluster it gets confused.  i think I have a way around it, Hope this helps a bit. Chris Day 20:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me understand: I have moved the metadata first, but I rename the page field before moving. You are saying NOT to change the name field first?


 * Incidentally, not sure where this should be getting reported, but there seems to be an intermittent (worst kind) of bug in Live Articles. For at least some initial letters, it will display only one page; the "next 400" takes you to next letter. I noticed that appendectomy wasn't showing up on the first page, but next 400 goes to B. Now, I've done resaves on azimuth and azithromycin. Random checking shows that some letters do go to the next page.


 * This concerns me if the "late-collating" names aren't being included in the article count.


 * Also, I got to a page of live articles that collate before zero or have no sort field, but I have absolutely no idea how I got there nor how to get back.


 * Apropos deletion, if there is no subpages template in an article that also has a article/definition, there appears to be no way to prevent lemma rendering on the article page unless, after metadata are created, the definition is deleted and restored. This isn't too terrible since I have SYSOP, but it's not scalable. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Move the metadata first but DO NOT change the pagename field. That should be the final thing.


 * I noticed that too but then assumed there must just be exactly 400 A articles. If you keep going through it does not always start on a new letter. Having said that I did not check closely.  Why would it only display A articles and stop at B?


 * I think I added abc values to those with out a sort field, however, their articles probably need to be jogged to get them to sort correctly. I did not bother doing that.


 * I'll try that, I doubt you need to delete it. Just jog the article and definition so it should see then register that there is  metadata. I'l get back to you on this. Chris Day 21:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Jogging didn't get A-articles such as azithromycin and azimuth to show up. appendectomy was done last night and hasn't shown up. I don't know if it's that the display can't page over 400, or, much worse, if the counter is limited to 400. My guess would be that it's a page display issue. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are 400 articles on the first page but for some reason the next 400 starts at the next section, In this case B, rather than article 401 in the list. You can see more of the A list if you click on the A hyperlink at the top of the page, so the articles that start with a number are absent. But again, press next 400 and rather than getting the 401st A article you get the start of the B's.  I'm pretty sure they are being counted, just not showing easily seen. The code for next needs to be fixed, I assume that is in the mediawiki itself.  This might well be a problem on any huge category, even on other wiki's. Chris Day 22:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually the code see in order. After pressing next 400 it request the list to continue from the correct location.   For some reason it ignores the request. Not sure where to go from here. I guess just e-mail the bugs@citizendium.org team. Chris Day 22:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I just went through the process of converting the lemma article at Sewall Wright to a cluster. The new categories updated fine for me. No need to delete any pages. Are you still having that problem? Chris Day 03:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed you still have the problem. Do I misunderstand why you need to delete the definition page in what you call a lemma conversion? Chris Day 01:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * While I haven't done it recently, the problem I was fixing wasn't categories. If a definition existed prior to the main article page being created with the template, when saving the article page, the definition (i.e., lemma) text would always show on the top.


 * I'm not sure what you mean by the categories problem; the other problem I had had was getting the live article count to increment without a jog to the article page. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying the lemma text does not disappear even after the metadata is created? It should, and does for me. Chris Day 02:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Lemma disappearance
Look at Euthanasia program (Nazi). I created the definition first. When I created the page and saved it, the lemma appeared on top. When I opened it again, put the SUBPAGES template at the top, and saved, it did not prompt for metadata but again appeared with lemma text. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I see where you are at. You will not get a prompt for metadata on the article. This had to change otherwise all lemma articles would have a prompt. But, create a talk page with the subpages template and you will get the prompt, as before. Chris Day 02:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be possible to add a small link to add metadata. Chris Day 02:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just added a create metadata template link to the lemma template. See if that works for you.  Feel free to recommend something similar, or play with it yourself at lemma. Chris Day 02:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

All CAPS
Are you sure that dogs speak in ALL CAPS? Chris Day 03:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Archy and Mehitabel may or may not be definitive. Nevertheless, in frequent observation of cats on the keyboard,, and the dogs here think they are cats, I have never detected a change in capitalization, so either arf or ARF is appropriate. Since our system capitalizes the first letter, consistency seemed more apt. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't either of you guys spell Al Capp, in whose basement in Cambridge, Mass., I used to shoot pool.... Hayford Peirce 04:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

not sure what to make of these
Are they from an eduzendium project? Or a book?

Should we delete them or at least should they be more encyclopedic? Its hard for me to know where to start as it is so far from my field. Chris Day 05:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Since they went in at the end of September and beginning of October, and are the only contributions from User: Stéphane Richard, perhaps we should check. They look like instructor handouts from a software engineering course. Alas, there are things that are less encyclopedic, without getting into the "appropriate". 9-11 conspiracy theory was for the Write-a-thon, but perhaps it should go away. Howard C. Berkowitz 06:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

lemma
Possibly you are confused here? The "create metadata" link is meant to be an optional link for convenience. More, so that people don't have to create the talk page to get the preload link for metadata. It's not really a good way to do it since it means people think they have to create metadata, which is not the idea. Any ideas how to make it's intended role more obvious but at the same time blend into the background? Chris Day 19:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I just tried to create International law/Related Articles before anything else was created, and got all sorts of error messages. So, as the simplest course of action, I created a lemma. Once I had done so, and admittedly I'm reasonably comfortable with metadata, I continued to whip through setting it up, so the article would become live as a stub; until we have "category 5" or some other way of identifying lemma articles, I'd just as soon seen them as live stubs. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, Possibly we're trying to balance too many needs here. There should not have been error messages when you created the Related Articles page. I think i require the "related article only" to be able to exist with no article AND no metadata.  That might be why the errors popped up.  I'll experiment and see what I need to change to fix that issue.


 * FYI, if we go with cat 5 the lemma would need metadata. Possibly that would be good since it would also be under the umbrella of at least one workgroup. Chris Day 19:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the proof reading and formatting fixes to my new article, Diego Mazquiarán! I appreciate having someone else look over my work to correct it (because I'm so horrible at doing it for myself). --Alexander Gude 04:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Kimchi
That is absolutely fabulous, Mr. Berkowitz! Although I'm a Korean & I eat Kimchi, I don't know much about it!!! I know that garlic, red pepper, green onion, etc. go into it & shrimp Jutgal is another major ingredient (in most Korean kimchi's... although the Chinese food companies have figured out ways to make Kimchi without adding jutgal to reduce production costs & I'm sure the Japanese make "Kimuchi" differently.) Let me work on the article as well! P.S. I also know about "mool kimchi" or "water kimchi" which doesn't contain much red pepper and has a very subtle taste. I heard that Korean food used to not be spicy before red pepper entered the country around the 16th century. (Chunbum Park 21:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC))
 * It's just impressive that you set out to make Kimchi at home! Kimchi is supposed to be very healthy for you. I'm sure that writing this article will just make you feel better about yourself, the hobby, and the food. (Chunbum Park 21:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

Collaboration
I saw your suggestion that the project needs some articles on some higher level topics like Al-Qaeda.

I have gathered some sources for beginning an article on Al-Qaeda. I will follow your style requests, to the best of my ability. I will ask you to try to regard it as a good faith attempt, without regard to how many aspects of it you think fall short of the standards you would like to see here.

I should put up a draft covering its founding after Osama bin Laden split from Abdullah Azzam's group, the group's movement to Sudan, the reports the group's role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, reports of the group's role in the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, the group's return to Afghanistan, its role in the bombing of the USS Cole, its role in the 2001-09-11 bombings -- in the next couple of days.

In my draft I could also begin to address al Qaeda's Afghan training camps, and its post 9-11 expansion as other groups, like Zarqawi's signed on board. I would like to ask you some questions about covering these two subtopics. George Swan 22:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's start an article simply to get a talk page, and move this discussion there. My suggestion would be to concentrate, at first, on the group's background and structure, more than its actions, although I offer a pointer to the best guesses as to its structural model, Clandestine cell system exemplified by al-Qaeda.


 * There may be reason to expand the bin Laden entry to get a better tie to Afghanistan as well as the Saudi groups with Azzam. Again in setting the foundation, we'll want to be sure to bring in the background from Sayyid Qutb and the Egyptian foundation groups.


 * Their theories of restoral of the Caliphate is important, as well as how they are regarded as heretics even by Wahhabis, much less more mainstream Sunnis and especially Shi'as. With the Sudanese tie-in, there's always he who made the Medici look simplistic, Howard C. Berkowitz 00:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the heads up on phytotherapy. I was not familiar with the term and never would have found it. --Todd Coles 15:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for comments on Flash evaporation Talk page.
Thanks for your comments. I have responded to them on the Talk page of the article. Regards, Milton Beychok 02:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * See your further comments and my further response on the Talk page of the article. Regards for tonite as I am now off to bed. Milton Beychok 09:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Howard, I added a brief mention about freeze drying to the article as you requested. You may go ahead with nominating it for approval if you so wish. Milton Beychok 17:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

lemma technique
Thanks for the very useful tip! Mark Harris 22:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Onslow Beach
What do you think about approving this one as a military article? Do we need to find an ecology person too or is it military-y enough? Stephen Ewen wrote this one with a little input from me (after someone suggested that there is nothing much to say about Onslow Beach) to prove that any topic might be developed into a good article with a little hard work... Joe Quick 01:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there would need to be more detail about the military uses -- not just that there were exercises, but the role Onslow Beach played in them, as opposed to any other amphibious training area. Right now, the article comes across as more tourism and ecology. I'll try an experiment later, and ask my housemate about it; I think he trained at Lejeune. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal "Article names for wars and conflicts"
I assigned your proposal "Article names for wars and conflicts" to be decided in first instance by all people that comment on it, following precedence for naming conventions. The Editorial Council has the final say, if they want to vote on it. Please update the proposal record, which you can find on CZ:Proposals/Ad hoc, and fill in the fields for the next step and the target date, so that we know what your plans are with the proposal. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me. -- The Proposals Manager, Jitse Niesen 14:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Putting "Related Articles" into practice
Howard, you're a big booster of using the Related Articles subpage to organize CZ, so could I ask you a question about putting that into practice? There's been a bit of discussion on CZ Talk:Literature Workgroup about this and was curious about your thoughts on this. For example, there's an artcle on H.G. Wells. When creating a Related Articles subpage for him, what would his "Parent Topics" be? "British literature," "British literature in the English language," "English literature" (i.e., from the country England), and "English-language literature" (which would also include American, Aussie, Trinidadian, etc.) would all work. So would, say, "Science fiction." We have no articles at any of those places but sci-fi; and we have no complete or organized list of subtopics in the top-level Literature article's Related Articles.

In the absence of any consensus for an organizational scheme corresponding to Britannica's "Outline of Knowledge," or any imposed scheme from CZ Editor(s) (which I'm not one of), what do you recommend doing? Let sleeping dogs lie until such a scheme exists? Boldly go ahead and let authors use their common sense and see what emerges from this "widsdom of crowds" I keep hearing about (while hiding behind my copy of "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds")? And, as Chris Day points out, you could put all of those categories as "parent topics" of Wells and "subtopics" of Literature, even if articles are never written for most of them, and the exist only as stand-alone Related Articles subpages; his point is that the more ways you can navigate to H.G. Wells the better.

One concern of mine was that if I started putting "national literatures" as Parent Topics, but then some later Editor or consensus decided we wanted to do it "by language," then all the American and British authors' Related Articles would have to be changed from "American" or "British" to "English-language lit." But Chris's point was that if we just used lots of overlapping categories anyway, that wouldn't be necessary; at worst you'd have to merge the articles on American, British, Aussie, Caribbean, etc., lit. into one article, not change hundreds of Related Articles pages.

Thanks for any recommendations you might have. Bruce M. Tindall 17:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good questions, to which I don't have a full set of answers. A key point to remember is that a given article can belong to multiple hierarchies. So, there's no reason not to have:
 * Parent Topics
 * (HG was English, I believe. Need better disambiguation from language and constituent country)
 * (His influence was so great I'd call that a parent)
 * some sort of article on speculative fiction that are seen as at least partially predicting the future
 * Subtopics
 * I'm increasing liking the convention of putting "The" in the title, although not sort order, of a book
 * Related articles
 * (includes interstellar unless you are fighting the star itself)
 * Related articles
 * (includes interstellar unless you are fighting the star itself)
 * Related articles
 * (includes interstellar unless you are fighting the star itself)
 * Related articles
 * (includes interstellar unless you are fighting the star itself)
 * (includes interstellar unless you are fighting the star itself)


 * I'm not a Wells expert, but this has been interesting! I'm tempted to go borrow a copy of Invisible Man and at least reference it in stealth and start invisibility. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

new author
You'll want to get to know this guy: User:Mike_steeves. --Joe Quick 18:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

interesting?
You might find this interesting? http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090309/full/458135a.html Chris Day 05:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

hyphen
trying to make it consistent, i guess I chose the wrong one. Did you notice I removed the reference to the Kennedy speech? I didn't know which Kennedy or which speech. Not sure if that was important or not. Chris Day 06:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Rutz's handout had a Ted Kennedy speech saying everything was destroyed from the MKULTRA program, yet elsewhere, in her same packet, were documents that hadn't been destroyed. *sigh* I didn't think an External Links page could, just by its very appearance, come across as non-neutral, but that article's page does -- if you just look at the titles. Howard C. Berkowitz 08:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

double redirects
Hi Howard, I noticed you are making some double redirects fore Hezbollah/Hizbollah. Is there a reason for this? Thought I'd check before I correct them. --Todd Coles 16:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reason? Not deliberate. As I hope you can see by the talk page, I had intended to use what I thought was the most accurate transliteration, not "the thing most people use", and had other Citizens change the article title no matter how much I explained I wanted to pick one, arbitrary, stable title and then redirect both transliterations and translations to it. If I have redirected to the wrong thing, it's because at this point, I don't really know what the definitive page title may be, or if others are still changing it. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the talk page discussion. I asked this because I noticed you today, within the span of 2 minutes create Hizbollah, which redirected to Hezbollah, imediately followed by Party of God and Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine going to Hizbollah, thus creating the double redirect.  I'll go ahead and take care of it when I get a moment, I just didn't want to step on anyones toes like I did with the lemma articles. --Todd Coles 19:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * May have been a typo. There should be lots of redirects going to the same place. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Co-opting adjectives for Workgroups and Articles
Howard, I was thinking of other semi-automatic machines/processes and that is why I changed it. Those articles seem specific to firearms, and the disputes over laws concerning them means they should have their own articles. An article about semi-automation or semi-automatic machines or processes would be different, and there will certainly be more such articles. Paying my mortgage or utility bills could be a semi-automatic or fully-automatic process too. I am trying to get people to stop using adjectives in place of nouns for article titles as if the adjective only applied to their particular field. Thus Antiviral--> Antiviral drug. Likewise, Historical Perspective is not a good name for Historical Perspective of Computer Codes. Does this make sense? David E. Volk 18:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

webmail
Hi Howard, I sent you a brief e-mail by webmail. Did you receive it? It ended up in a draft folder and I'm not sure that I have to send it again from there (haven't used webmail too often).--Paul Wormer 22:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ironclad
Hello Mr. Berkowitz! I'm afraid that Koreans did not invent iron-clad vessels. There is no definite proof that turtle ships were iron-clad, and in fact the Japanese were the first to armor their ships with iron plating (but hold your breath because this is all subjective).

Admiral Yi's diary (nor the official Joseon history) does not mention that turtle ships had iron plating on them. However, 2 main evidence substantiating the theory that turtle ships were iron-clad came from a drawing & a Japanese record. The drawing done about 200 yrs after the war on an apparently grounded turtle ship showed hexagonal plating on the roof, and a Japanese commander claimed the turtle ship was covered with iron, but the iron could refer to iron spikes.

The Japanese during the 1580s seemed to have won a naval battle or 2 with giant ships reinforced and covered with iron, but really it was not much more than the large metal shields on the sides of Greek warships + bad construction (that's the impression I got from researching Korean War of 1592-1598). Probably European man-of-war's & Korean & Chinese ships with cannons & cannonballs carried more iron than the Japanese' iron-clad ships.

I'll add some reference to the "1st ironclad"s in Battle of Hampton Roads later; I lent my book to my history teacher so I can't work on the subject currently. Thank you! (Chunbum Park 04:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

Approvals?
I think a number of articles I've worked on, most of which you've been involved in as editor, may be ready for approval. The big ones are cryptography and block cipher. Smaller ones include passive attack and its children Brute force attack, Algebraic attack and Code book attack plus active attack, Man-in-the-middle attack, Meet-in-the-middle attack, birthday attack and Snake oil (cryptography). Should rewrite attack become a separate article, rather than a pointer into stream cipher as it now is? Sandy Harris 01:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But much, perhaps all, of Block_cipher is too general for that article. It belongs somewhere else, but I'm not certain where.
 * What about Digital signature, RSA, discrete logarithm, HMAC, Block cipher modes of operation, Diffie-Hellman, ... Are any of them approvable? Sandy Harris 01:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

For active attack, passive attack, Algebraic attack, Code book attack, RSA, discrete logarithm, Hashed message authentication code and Birthday attack history shows me as the only editor, except for a couple of trivial copy edits. Only passive attack and RSA have anything on the talk page. I think most of those could move toward approval, though RSA and discrete log need to have math editor take a look. I've invited two via talk pages, but no response yet.

You did one edit of Man-in-the-middle attack and two for Meet-in-the-middle attack, arguably substantive. For Diffie-Hellman, one that I would say was a copy edit, adding citations & links. I think those might need another editor for approval.

Snake oil (cryptography) may hold the record for the highest ratio of talk page text to article text. I think the current version may be approvable. What's your take on that?

What about the biggies, cryptography and block cipher? I'm certain both could be improved, but are they good enough yet? Sandy Harris 09:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Reminder re your proposal "Article names for wars and conflicts"
Hello. May I please remind you of my message above, dated 11 March, on your proposal "Article names for wars and conflicts". As far as I can see, you haven't yet updated the proposal record on CZ:Proposals/Ad hoc, nor have I seen any sign of activity on the proposal page. If nothing happens within a week, I'll have to assume that you are no longer interested in the proposal and thus remove you as its driver, which will render the proposal inactive. -- The Proposals Manager, Jitse Niesen 11:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

About the Alkane article you created
Hi, Howard: Please take a good look at the Hydrocarbons article that I just finished revising and expanding quite a bit. When you have done that, would you think it appropriate to delete the Alkane article (which you originated) as being redundant? Just a suggestion ... my heart won't be broken if you disagree. Milton Beychok 03:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

civil war
Hi Howard, I'm working on cleaning up the redirects from the American Civil War move and working on the disambiguation page. As a military editor, do you forsee an article simply on "civil war"? If so we can start that article out as a stub and have a link at a top to the disambig. --Todd Coles 00:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it up to your discretion and expertise. I think a separate article at civil war makes more sense, unless we redirect it to the civil war section of insurgency.  Currently, searching for either "civil war" or "Civil War" is redirecting to the disambig page.  I suppose we could even have something on the disambig page that sends people to the insurgency article. --Todd Coles 01:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest emailed question from Landon Blake
Howard, I have asked Landon to move our discussions from now on to his user talk page. It is easier to communicate there than by emails over the CZ Engineering mail list. I also told him that you would reply to his latest question since it concerns your way of starting an article. Please read my response to him on his Talk page at User talk:Landon Blake. Milton Beychok 21:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Since we are now discussing the specific PLSS article, I have copied (not moved) the discussions on Landon's talk page to Talk:Public Land Survey System. Please have a look there at a few questions that I raised. Especially my question about the lemma articles in the Related Links subpage. Regards, Milton Beychok 22:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand
Hi, Howard: I don't understand why youhave already closed voting on Resolution 0014 by protecting it. I thought that you had extended the voting to Saturday. And even disregarding that, it is not yet 2045 UTC on Friday March 27. It is only about 1600 UTC on Thursday at the moment. Milton Beychok 15:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Paper calendar reminders now. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed? CZ:Editorial Council Resolution 0014/Vote is still locked and still has Friday as the last voting day rather than Saturday. Have another few cups of strong coffee. Regards, Milton Beychok 17:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Now I don't understand. Howard, you blanked the 0014 resolution.  Shouldn't that be up so that we can read the resolution?  Russell D. Jones 19:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you give me a link to the problem? As far as I know, all I did was unlock voting and correct the closed vote. If I accidentally deleted something, I'll undo it. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Use the user talk page

 * Hi Howard, the problem here is that this detracts from the discussion on the article page, it would be totally appropriate on a user talk page, though (provided it's professional). D. Matt Innis 21:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Recovered memory
This whole discussion makes me want to either grit my teeth, or scream, or both, but I *do* wonder, in my official capacity as Constable as to why you, Howard, just removed Neil's last comment? Would you please explain? If your explanation is not sufficient, would you then please restore it. Thanks. Hayford Peirce 03:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hayford, I am not sure how to go about this, but the same editor is editing my talk page comments, three times in the last day or so. On another page, he deleted two urls from my talk page comment without a notice in the edit summary. I assumed good faith this was an accident, but it is happening too many times. On this page, he deleted a brief quoted description of a study I had posted without a comment in the edit summary. I asked him not to do so again. Please let me know what I should do about this. Thanks. Neil Brick 03:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been having a *very* difficult time trying to figure out what is going on with this whole discussion and issue. Let me look at your talk page more carefully -- I glanced at it once, but saw nothing amiss. Stand by. Hayford Peirce 03:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see nothing on your talk page that he has changed. You are apparently also referring to *another* article's talk page where he supposedly removed your comments. Which one? I am not going to spend HOURS and hours researching this issue. I say to both you and Howard: if one or the other does something unprofessional (in your opinion), then instantly send a message to the official place: constables@citizendium.org. Please don't wait to bring it up three days later. In the meantime, let me caution both of you to think CAREFULLY before you write comments to each other on all the various pages that you seem to have going.  And be absolutely CERTAIN that you are acting correctly before removing ANY material written by the other person. Hayford Peirce 03:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just before I came back and saw this, I sent a note to the Constabulary. I deny deliberately deleting any link that had an actual function, although I did reformat some that were not usable hyperlinks. Please see my email.


 * For the record, I am not an editor on this article. I am an author. I am an Editor in the Engineering, Computers, and Military workgroups. While The Other Place calls everyone an editor, that is not CZ terminology. Gareth, incidentally, is an Editor in a workgroup relevant to this article; perhaps that is something to consider when continuing to argue his changes and his rejection of the inclusion of certain links. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know where the "editor"-"Editor" discussion cropped up, but Howard is, in fact, correct here. Editors at CZ are more exalted persons than at WP, where *everyone* is an editor. Here we are "authors" (all of us) and "Editors", some of us. An Editor can be an author, but not vice-versa. As Howard says, Gareth is an official Editor in the Workgroup under which this article falls. If he makes an official decision in his capacity as Editor about something in this article you may, I suppose, discuss it briefly with him, but basically it is a closed door. There are official ways to appeal his decision, but simply arguing interminably about it on the Talk page is not one of them. Hayford Peirce 03:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) You deleted two urls at the Satanic ritual abuse page in my talk page comment see line 318

You deleted a brief quote from a journal article on this page see The cite journal already had a url.

And now you deleted an entire paragraph at this dif here though it has been stated above this was an edit conflict.

Again I am asking, please do not delete any more of my talk page comments. Thank you. Neil Brick 03:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Before we get side tracked here, why were the deleted articles relevant to the Satanic ritual abuse article? Neither article mentions it. Both were about crimes involving aggravated rape. What am I missing here? Chris Day 03:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Hammond, LA case discussed Satanic ritual abuse also, this is from one article "Detectives also believe that members dressed in black to perform rituals that included _____ on a pentagram"


 * "According to Bernard, the rituals took place in what was called “the room,” which was the church's youth room....The rituals had a Satanic theme, including a Pentagram, the use of animals and animal parts such as chicken feet and the use of animal ____."Neil Brick 04:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But Howard didn't delete that one. Chris Day 04:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Howard also explained why he deleted the quote: "The citation was adequately described by the URL. The quote I removed was removed as irrelevant to the talk page discussion. It might become relevant if there was consensus to keep the citation at all, but, I would note, both Gareth and disagree with it being in the article at all. Is there a particular reason to restore it here?" Chris Day 04:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The two urls deleted at the Satanic ritual abuse page were directly related to the case. They were deleted without any comment in the edit summary.


 * He deleted the citation without any notice in the edit summary. When I returned the quote to the page, then he explained why he deleted it. It was relevant to the talk page discussion, because it decscribed the debated study in more detail.Neil Brick 04:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For one there was not even an article, just a title and a photo. The other had no clear connection to Satanic abuse.  If it was somehow related to the hammond star one why didn't you explain the significance? Chris Day 04:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Conflating ritual abuse, Satanic ritual abuse, sadism, and an assortment of other things apparently allows the term "satanic" to be applied to whatever one pleases. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Pentagrams do not equate to Satanism
On my talk page, spell out terms, no family friendly, or have them deleted

A Pentagram is not an exclusively Satanic symbol.

In point of fact, many known tribal and modern neopagan Earth religions will perform what is properly called the Great Rite, within a pentagram, as a blessing of the Earth's fertility. It is an act involving consenting adults. No children are present or desired.

This ignorant equating of symbols to whatever one wants to call Satanism is deeply offensive to Wiccans, for example. While I recognize that we don't know accurately the scope of the Burnings of the middle ages, to call the practice good-oriented Witch (a term of respect) abusive and Satanic,is about as welcome as spraying a swastika on a synagogue. I am dead serious here.

Swastikas, incidentally, were good symbols in a number of South Asian and Native American cultures before the seemingly inconceivable Adolf Hitler was conceived. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Desperately putting this in somewhere because of QUADRUPLE edit conflict :-<

 * Politely, since this is my talk page, you are wrong about this. Random deleting? Yes, you have a point. Reformatting data dumps? In my mind, the same category as Chris fixing a broken ***


 * This isn't a content issue. Polluting talk pages with dumps and bad formatting is behavior. Show me a place where I've deliberately deleted any actual content and I'll lick it off the screen.


 * A data dump is bad enough because it adds no value. A badly formatted data dump is worse. I was able to take two or three screens worth of data dump on Talk: Satanic ritual abuse and reformat it such that it was a bunch of bulleted links that could be seen in context. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Constable comment
I have been intimately watching the behavior on both Talk:Recovered memory and Talk:Satanic ritual abuse and will be emailing both Howard and Neil with my concerns. D. Matt Innis 04:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Matt, thank you for your help with this. Neil Brick 04:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I'd suggest that cutting and pasting tens of references is not good talk etiquette. Instead I'd suggest it is better to make clear points and then use the articles to clarify the points you are trying to make. For the record, I usually ignore random data dumps, on the other hand I will read a reasoned argument. Chris Day 04:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In spite of my comments in the section just below, in which I argue for the semi-inviolability of talk pages, I *do* agree with Chris -- they shouldn't be used as massive data dumps. Hayford Peirce 04:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I seem to recall that someone made a request for information to support Neil's position. D. Matt Innis 04:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Possibly, but without context pasting many many references are worthless. We all know it has been in the news. The question is how reliable is the testimony and reporting? Chris Day 04:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. I considered it unresponsive.

Constable Comment #2
Chris makes the point that some of the deleted material from the talk page was duplicated and hence not needed. I take the other point of view: Talk pages are for "robust argument and discussion" as they say about the U.S. policies concerning free speech. If it isn't unprofessional (and that covers a wide ground), then I don't see why a little extraneous material can't be allowed to live on a talk page UNLESS A RELEVANT EDITOR absolutely finds some reason why it shouldn't be there. No one would be happy if I, in my capacity AS AN AUTHOR, simply started deleting their comments and links from various talk pages. Or am I wrong about this? No one would mind? Please, people, LEAVE THE TALK PAGES ALONE! If you have a really serious problem with something appearing on a talk page, help from the Constabulary is only a single email away. Email us at: constables@citizendium.org. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 04:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Though we have talk page etiquette, trying to enforce it as an author only aggravates a strained relationship and lends itself to accusations of dubious intentions.  It is best to leave other's comments alone, lest ye be blamed for what might be an innocent mistake.  Just don't do it and avoid all accusation of impropriety. D. Matt Innis 04:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I was not arguing that it was duplicated but that it was not obviously even relevant. There was not mention of satanic abuse in the NYTimes article. I actually thought it was a different case and possibly mistakenly pasted into page.


 * Since then I have done a google search for the case (search term bernard+hosanna+satanic) and the top hit suggests that this is a horrendously complicated case. Is this really the most clear cases we have to work with for the Satanic abuse article? It certainly explains why there was not mention of Satanic abuse in the NYTimes article. We have to realise that just because the guy is guilty of horrendous crimes this does not automatically make him a satanist. Chris Day 04:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A response like that is perfectly reasonable and was all that was necessary on the talk page, thanks Chris. D. Matt Innis 04:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)