User talk:Milton Beychok



Updated article on TSCF
Milton, I just made small updates to the article on The Social Capital Foundation, corrected links. Could you please approve the new version. Thanks Koen Demol 19:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Koen. I moved your posting to the bottom of this Talk page where it belongs. For a new article to be approved, or for re-approving a revised version of an existing article (which is the case with The Social Capital Foundation), requires that it first be nominated for approval or re-approval by either:


 * A single editor who has not participated significantly in creating the article, or
 * Three editors who have participated significantly in creating the article.


 * In either of the two cases above, the nominators must be editors in the workgroup categories specified in the article's Metadata template. In this case of The Social Capital Foundation. the categories specified in the Metadata template are Sociology, Politics and Anthropology. Since I am not an editor in any of those categories, I cannot nominate the article for re-approval.


 * You should read CZ:Approval process. In some cases, if the revisions to an approved article are very minor (like adding or revising wiki links or fixing a few typos), I believe that a constable can do a re-approval without going through any formal nomination and approval procedures. I know that Matt Innis has done that in the past. Perhaps other constable have also done that, but I really don't know if they have. Milton Beychok 19:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Milt, I did make some *very* minor changes to Approved articles while I was a Cop. But they were incredibly trivial matters, removing a comma, changing two spaces to one space, correcting the spelling within a link, etc. And even those changes generally had to be run pass three or four editors or authors in an informal manner, generally on the Talk pages.... Hayford Peirce 20:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Valve
Milt, are you writing or planning to write an article on Valve ? If so, let me know, so I will not bother to do it. Otherwise, I may write a Valve article. I'm trying to avoid interferences between us and duplication of effort. Henry A. Padleckas 05:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We could use an articles about valves ... please go ahead if you wish to write one. We could also use an article about pressure vessels. Milton Beychok 16:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

your pH scale pic modified
Milt, I modified your pic Image:PH scale.png. If you don't like it, you can revert back to your old one. The gradient colors I used were supposed to be reminiscent of litmus paper color change.

I got some software that can make linear or radial color gradients. Windows-Paint does not make such gradients (easily). If you ever need any color gradients, tell me whether you want linear or radial, and what colors you want. I can then e-mail them to you. Then you can use Paint to scale them, skew them, and apply them to any drawing you want. Also, if you want them at a certain angle, I have software that can rotate too. Henry A. Padleckas 12:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Its a nice improvement, Henry ... thanks. Milton Beychok 16:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

HUBO
Milt, I've looked at your edits on HUBO and see that they are only copyedits, so you can not only join in the approval (you could do that even if they were content edits), but you can still approve as a "single editor approval" if necessary (should Alexander not return to update the version number to include any new changes). D. Matt Innis 23:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Matt, I had planned to update the version number when I sign on as a co-nominator. Is that okay? I had always thought that any of the nominators could change the version number. Milton Beychok 23:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * All editors have to approve the same version, so if there were some changes since the first editor endorsement, he/she would have to agree to the new version. That way their name doesn't end up on something they may disagree with. In this case, though, since you have not made content edits, you don't need the other editor necessarily, but, should he return, he can join you in the approval as well. D. Matt Innis 00:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Query on links to WP
Hi Milt:

The article Schrödinger equation on its External links page connects to the article on WP. Is that a customary practice? It seems to me to go against the notion of linking to a reliable source. John R. Brews 20:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * John, that was a reference at one time and it was created back in 2007 ... and later moved to the External Links subpage. It should be deleted. We do not use Wikipedia articles as references or external links. Milton Beychok 21:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Vacuum
Hi Milt:

As you know, there are a lot of articles about vacuum in physics. They include Vacuum (laboratory), Vacuum (partial), Vacuum (quantum electrodynamic) Vacuum (classical) Vacuum (disambiguation) Vacuum (science) Free space (electromagnetism). I hope I've got them all. I think they should be pared down to three (apart from a revamped disambiguation page): Vacuum (quantum electrodynamic) Vacuum (classical) Vacuum (partial). The first is pretty straightforward and probably is OK as is. The second would be instead of Free space (electromagnetism) and I'd pretty much copy that article under the new name. The third, Vacuum (partial), would be intended to cover terrestrial vacuum as in Vacuum (laboratory) and Vacuum (science).

The question is how to approach this project. It requires some reorganization and possibly making redirects out of several articles and putting their content in the surviving articles. It appears that John Stephenson, you and I are the only ones at all interested in this matter. Do you think this has to be taken to a general airing, or shall I just go at it and let you and John pick it over? John R. Brews 18:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you look at John Stephenson's user page, you will see that he is no longer with CZ ... unless he changes his mind and returns.


 * So that leaves you and I ... and I think you should just go ahead and do what you think is best. I might also point out that we also have a Vacuum distillation article which I wrote quite some while ago ... altho that really isn't too relevant to what you are proposing to do. - Milton Beychok 18:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Milt: I've made these changes, and I hope you will check out the various cross links etc. and add Vacuum distillation to the disambiguation box if you wish. John R. Brews 20:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * John, when you redirected Vacuum (science) to Vacuum (partial), you still left the subpages Vacuum (science)/Definition and Vacuum (science)/Related Articles. I will request that those two subpages be speedy deleted unless I hear differently from you. Are there some links in Vacuum (science)/Related Articles that you want to salvage (copy and paste) and use in Vacuum (partial)/Related Articles before I ask for speedy deletion?


 * Are there any other redirects that left behind some some subpages? Milton Beychok 21:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Milt: Thanks for bringing this up. I transferred the Related Articles to the new pages. I didn't find anything else.


 * The disambiguation page Vacuum uses the definition of the redirect Vacuum (laboratory)/Definition, so maybe that should be kept unless this category is removed from the disambig.  Likewise for Free space  and Free_space_(electromagnetism)/Definition John R. Brews 22:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that only existing main articles (or red links to articles yet to be written) should be listed in the DAMB page. Redirects and/or definitions that exist for any redirects should not be included. Milton Beychok 02:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I love this!!
Milton: thank you for all the help so far. Mostly I wanted to let you know I've contacted a good friend and encouraged her to join us. She is also a PhD candidate in philosophy and has an MA in Classics. She's an expert on the philosophy of Plotinus, for whom Citizendium does not have a page. I have asked her to consider creating one. ...said Maria Cuervo (talk)

University host
Milton: I am finally thinking about the request for monthly donations and want to first understand CZ's long term plans. Where can I find details of the efforts to find a university to host CZ? Thanks - Robert Badgett 12:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Robert, the best person for you to contact on that is Dan Nessett. He has handled the efforts to find a university. Milton Beychok 15:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't know about this effort but I had already considered last week speaking with someone at VU about this. It seems like something my university would really appreciate. I was also wondering if students could work on basic definitions and sections under the supervision of an editor who also happens to be their teacher. But maybe that is too out there. I for one would be tempted to get my students working on this project.--Maria Cuervo 16:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Maria, our current hosting costs are $320 per month. The money we raised in our recent donation drive will carry us through for almost 6 more months. Please contact Dan Nessett on our Management Council about the possibilty of being hosted by Villanova University ... please do so as soon as possible. Milton Beychok 16:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Milt, similar as Robert, I was thinking of asking this for some time, but in face of our current discussions I do not want to raise it on the forum right now:
 * It would be nice to have some information on what hosting options have already been checked and why they failed or were rejected. I am aware that last year a quick solution had to be found, but now there is still half a year, and this information could helpful when thinking about options.
 * Maria, CZ is open for collaboration with teaching -- the project is called Eduzendium. How this collaboration is organized may be adapted or changed, reflecting past experience (some problems exist) and the needs of the course.
 * --Peter Schmitt 17:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am curious why so expensive. Is it bandwidth then? I have my own virtual server that I am setting up through a host for my own web projects and I imagine that the reason it is less than 50 a month is because I expect the traffic to be comparably low compared to something like Citizendium and don't need as much memory, space or other resources. I'll contact Dan and see how I should approach this and who I should approach.--Maria Cuervo 18:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Maria, keep in mind that we have the various forums as well as the live wiki and the test wiki. Dan is our computer guru and he has all of the technical specifications for what we need. Milton Beychok 19:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Peter, keep in mind that when Larry Sanger was still with us and our server costs were being handled by the Tidewater Foundation, they were $709 per month. The MC did nothing in haste ... Dan considered every alternative very carefully (in the U.S. as well as Europe) and he finally negotiated our current price of $320 per month with Steadfast. He explained it all to the other 4 members of the MC at the time and we all agreed that he made a good choice at that time. Please don't burden Dan with asking him to explain all of the searching he did. We have more pressing problems that need to be handled ... as you well know. Regards, Milton Beychok 19:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * All, I have responded to Maria's request for an explanation of our computing service requirements here: CZ service requirements

HUBO
Hello. I last spoke to Daniel on e-mail chat around April 4th. I made one correction that he pointed out on the spot, but there are certainly more that needs to be done. He asked me to remind him again before deadline. I sent him an e-mail again, but he seems to have overlooked it. I sent him a chat message as reminder just now, although he is marked as offline. I hope he will be able to notice it soon.

But in the meantime, just to be safe, we should extended deadline, but not too far back because that might allow Daniel to procrastinate, and that would mean the article would never get approved.. Thank you very much! (Chunbum Park 02:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC))

Edits on metre
Hi Milt:

I'm happy to see your interest in the article Metre (unit). This article has caused me some problems, as my editing history indicates. I'd like to discuss a few of your changes, and get some feedback.

First, you apparently object to my characterization of LORAN as obsolete. The basis for this statement was a book I did not cite that, of course, suggests the GPS has pretty much taken over. Maybe you can explain to me what you are thinking about here, and why you decided to omit reference to GPS, and the links to the articles on GPS and on LIDAR?

Those items are perhaps matters of taste. However, the reinsertion of the wavelength of the electron as &lambda; = c0 / f is actually an error. This wavelength in fact is related to the electron beam energy, and the relation to the metre has to be established, say by comparison of two measurements of the same object using both electrons and photons. For example, this article discusses traceability of standards, which I take to mean connecting to the basic definition of the metre in terms of wavelengths of light. John R. Brews 20:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * John, I am completely confused. I made no edits having anything to do with LORAN, GPS or LIDAR ... at least not intentionally. If such edits occurred, they must have happened accidentally or through some strange software bug. Please feel free to undo them.


 * The only edits I made to Metre (unit) were to correct an incorrect conversion, add some wiki links, and a few other minor copy edits. Regards, Milton Beychok 21:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Milt: As you can see, my attempts at metre (unit) took me past any pretense of considering myself an "expert". I do believe I have properly understood the sources and made a reasonable presentation. It must be said, however, that the basis for the switch in definition of the metre in 1983 is described by the officiating BIPM and NIST in a very confusing manner, and I am led to believe what we are seeing here is "a camel is a horse designed by a committee". John R. Brews 20:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC) I'm not criticizing the 1983 resolutions, but the incoherence of the explanations for it. John R. Brews 22:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)