User talk:D. Matt Innis/Archive 8



Hi Matt - can you do the honours on Evidence-based medicine :-)Gareth Leng 18:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Gareth! You bet, let me get a confirmation from Robert (and I am assumimg you are still okay with the article and Robert's response to your concerns) and then I'll lock it. D. Matt Innis 18:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Topic informant qustion

 * writing or editing articles about one's own company or organization, as well as adding links to websites with which one is associated

A church is an organization, so it is okay if I write about Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church? You can ask Larry whether I'm capable of collaborating on an unbiased article about my own religion. Look at the Wikipedia version (2001 to 2005 anyway). If anything, I may have overcorrected for bias and balanced the article the 'other way'. --Ed Poor 18:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a very good question, Ed. Any problem with asking that on the forum?  I don't feel comfortable making a unilateral decision on that without hearing from the community first and then we can answer it once and for all (until the next time :-) D. Matt Innis 18:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Air pollution dispersion terminology due for approval today
Hi, Matt: Another of my gentle reminder hints. :) Milton Beychok 18:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Matt, I think you are protecting the approved article and then setting the status in the metadata. Recall that changes in categories will only register on the category pages after an edit on the articles or subpage.  The best approach is to set the metadata early in the process and then makes the finishing edits on the respective pages, in this way the categories all register correctly.  I hope this makes sense. Chris Day 19:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I'm doing, but I will certainly change that process if it makes it all work! Thanks Chris. D. Matt Innis 00:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is becoming clear that an upcoming script priority is to have a way to "jog" or update all subpages associated with a particular medtadata template after it has been updated. I assume this is possible but don't know how to program it. Chris Day 00:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey guess what Matt and Chris?
I archived my talk page all by myself and it worked. (I've no idea *why* it worked, of course, but...) Aleta Curry 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * HaHa! There's hope for you, yet!  Now there isn't anything you can't do...  give a lady high speed internet and there is no stopping her :-D. Matt Innis 03:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You ain't kidding! It's like having a bad tooth pulled! Aleta Curry 03:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, lol, Dial-up stinks, but I had no idea you were hurting that bad! Bless you!  D. Matt Innis 03:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely can't stop the right ladies. Now it is true I've had dinner with Grace Hopper, but not that it was a date. She still inspires me; being dead doesn't seem to cramp her style. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * She's probably still a good listener ;-) But are you saying she had bad teeth? ! D. Matt Innis 04:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Final approval of AN- is due today
Hi, Matt: Another one of my gentle reminders about a final approval due today. Milton Beychok 16:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Move/Rename
Matt: The procedure you proposed on my talk page blows up big time! Once I moved the main article and subpages, then I could no longer find/access the Metadata template to revise it and move it.

Fortunately, in anticipation of that happening, I had written down the url of the Metadata template and the url of the Talk page ... so I was able to access them and to finish the move okay. But that is a tortuous way of doing it. We really need a new, simpler method. Chris is working on it and maybe he will succeed soon. Milton Beychok 06:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

More about moves
I want to move United States Department of Defense to U.S. Department of Defense because most of the other cabinet articles are now titled U.S ...., but I cannot because the there is a redirect named U.S. Department of Defense and the system thinks it is an article. Can you please delete that redirect, so I can make the desired move? (That's another bug with moving an article). Milton Beychok 06:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried revising the names in the Metadata template and moving the Metadata template first ... and then moving everything else with the Move tab. That worked fairly well. However, after the Move tab moved everything else, two pop-up boxes appeared. One said the article names in the Metadate template needed revising (even though I had done so before moving it) ... so I did that and all was then well.


 * The other pop-up box that appeared told me to do something (I've forgotten what) to delete the old MetaData template. However, I ignored that since all seemed well after I revised the names in the new metadata template.


 * Wrapping it up, moving the Metadata page first worked fairly well except for those two pop-up boxes that appeared at the end. I am afraid that would really confuse most of us. Milton Beychok 07:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Milt, so far at least we can move the metadata first, move the article and subpages, then rename the metadata (for some reason), then ignore the last one (unless it is necessary for some other function that we are not aware of, yet). I see that Chris has been moving some things as well and will likely figure out those final details, so let's wait to see what he comes up with before we try writing this in the procedures for moving an article cluster.. D. Matt Innis 07:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignore the orange warning box, just use the one at the top titled cluster move. Chris Day 07:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is what you should do (and you can try that "test" link at the top of the talk page, next to the language variant info).
 * 1) Move the metadata to the new page first. DO NOT change the pagename field until the end.
 * 2) Go to the new metadata page. Now move the article BUT make sure you check the two options, one to move the TALK page AND the other to move the subpages. There should be a link to initiate the article move at the top of the page.
 * 3) Then go to the new article page. Now the old approval page and the metadata page need to be tagged for deletion. You should see two links and instructions to do this at the top of the page.
 * 4) Finally, there is a link at the top of the page to go back and edit the metadata so the pagename field can be updated (ABC field should be updated too).


 * Those instruction work if everything is as expected, I have not tested all the unexpected scenarios yet, so be prepared for surprises. Chris Day 07:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I found a bug that is a problem if there is no approval page to start with, nevertheless, it is close. WIll try and finish it this weekend. Chris Day 08:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ouch! And I just finished a number of hours slogging through a number of renames! I promise ... no more of that until you finish, Chris. I probably left a number of old Metadata sheets lying around in Metadata heaven. Milton Beychok 09:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

NMR spectroscopy reminder
Approval is today!! -Joe Quick 17:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Got it, Thanks Joe - are you sure you don't want to be approvals manager?! D. Matt Innis 05:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've (sort of) decided to volunteer to do that once I have my plans figured out for where I will be going to school in the fall. I'm still waiting on responses but had an interview with my top choice over the phone the other day, so things are looking good... --Joe Quick 04:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good news all around! I've got my fingers crossed for both ;-) D. Matt Innis 04:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Re HMO page
Mr. Innis, I agree with your edits and made an additional edit to address a talk page concern. I believe the latest edits now address all concerns. With your approval, I will add the article back to mainspace. Please notify me at my talk page. Thanks. Neil Brick 05:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made additional changes to the page. When you get a chance, please see my talk page. Neil Brick 05:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I answered on your talk! D. Matt Innis 03:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Am I eligible to approve the biography of James Clerk Maxwell?
Matt, please look here and tell me if I am eligible to join in the approval nomination of James Clerk Maxwell. Regards, Milton Beychok 19:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Page move for Preschool education
Thank you for the offer to move the page to the correct naming format. I would not even know how to begin since there are sub-pages. Melissa Newman 17:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, just let me know when and where and I'll take it from there! D. Matt Innis 17:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the where was what I thought you were going to be in charge of. As for the when, whenever you like ... just send me the link.  Melissa Newman 17:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, no, that would be too easy!... and probably wrong :-) I just enforce the policies, not make them ;) D. Matt Innis 18:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Until the issue is settled on if we are going to have a separate space for student versions, I think that it is just best to leave things alone. After that issue is settled, the StudentWorkgroup will need to decide on a bunch of policy issues related to that namespace.  Yes, I admit that I have a bias towards the namespace solution.  Although Larry also suggested the idea, I don't know how many other people have to agree to make a policy. Melissa Newman

Response about images
As I stated to Larry, I don't have a problem with picking images writing wikicode, even writing PHP code, but I do not want to have to write emails to companies and people asking for permission. I am a backroom worker type of person. I like to work behind the scenes and let somebody that has better communication skills do the customer communication. I will do the research, including obtaining email addresses, but the actual correspondence I would prefer to hand to somebody else. Melissa Newman 00:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I added a bunch of image links to the page listed. I included the licenses of either GNU or creative commons as well as the trace back to the source. The government website is public domain, so from what I read on wikipedia we are free to load those images to our servers. Do all of these have to be downloaded and uploaded manually? Or has the batch file upload extension been installed on this website? If all of the images in a group are from the same author with the same license can I just zip and email to somebody who has permission to do a bulk upload? Melissa Newman 01:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Melissa! I took a look at what you have done so far and, without making any comment about any particular copyright issue, it looks like you are figuring it out and doing a good job so far.  I'm sorry that I cannot help with the copyright requests, as my other duties would suffer I'm afraid, but I am quite sure that once you get things going, you will attract interest and with that comes those who will help you.  I'll let you know if I see anything that fails our policies (as will others I'm sure), but I am really looking forward to seeing what you've got to show us. I have no idea about bulk uploads, but keep asking the technical guys and I am sure someone might have an answer for you (and then I'll know, too) D. Matt Innis 01:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * PS - This is your next step. D. Matt Innis 01:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Accidental release source terms/Draft due for re-approval today
Matt, another of my gentle reminders. Milton Beychok 18:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Paul Wormer is eminently qualified to be a Physics Editor
Matt, Paul Wormer wants to become a Physics Editor. In my opinion, he is eminently qualified to be one. I am sure that Daniel Mietchen would agree that Paul is very qualified to be Physics Editor. I would hazard a guess that Paul has probably written more Physics articles in CZ than anyone else.

Can you, as a Constable, see that Paul is made an Editor? Milton Beychok 07:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As I understand the process, Constables are responsible only for approving Authors -- Editors are chosen by another group of people altogether -- I suggest that you email Larry about this. Hayford Peirce 15:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what I did on the 4th of February. I'm waiting for an answer.--Paul Wormer 17:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Paul and Milt, I am not privy to anything in the editorial application review process (for good reason as this is complicated), but I am quite sure it is more a matter of time than lack of will on Larry's part. Hang in there and I am sure that you will hear something shortly.  D. Matt Innis 00:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
I hope I did... Aren't you the Assistant Chief Constable!? Oh no... (Chunbum Park 05:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC))


 * You bet, I had both guns drawn! :) D. Matt Innis 06:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It must be very boring being a Constable here... even the Assistant Chief or the Chief. No vandalism. (Chunbum Park 06:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Don't even talk about it. I'd take boredom over daily reverting of vandalism anytime!!  Let's not give anyone any ideas!!!! We have enough to do... D. Matt Innis 06:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

James Clerk Maxwell due for final Approval tomorrow
Thought that this time I would give you a reminder 24 hours ahead of time. :>) Milton Beychok 17:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh great, now I'm going to have to remember! :-) D. Matt Innis 19:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * All you have to remember is to set the metadata first. Chris Day 19:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's two things I now have to remember! :-D. Matt Innis 20:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

John Logie Baird is ready for your attention today too! --Joe Quick 01:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Joe, I almost forgot both! (But I did remember to do the metadata first!) D. Matt Innis 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor
Sure, you are absolutelly right. Having Chris name there didn't make any sense. Sorry. It was a distraction when it should show my username instead. I just pasted the code and forgot to change the name. On the other hand as botany is a subgroup of biology I suppose I can add my won name on it myself (as was my intention), can't I? Dalton Holland Baptista 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Heads up on final approval of Flash evaporation
Matt, Flash evaporation awaits you tomorrow. Milton Beychok 00:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, then all I have to do is remember to move the metadata first, right Chris! D. Matt Innis 01:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's today! --Joe Quick 15:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I usually wait till the evening (here) to give everyone a chance to take one last look... so you might have to remind me again! D. Matt Innis 15:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, did you notice that it does not show up on the ToApprove list? D. Matt Innis 15:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Evening makes sense. I start chomping at the bit as soon as the sun comes up... :-)
 * It didn't show up because noone had edited the talk page since Howard nominated the article. It's annoying how that happens, but fortunately most articles attract a little discussion during the approval period. I made a minor edit to fix it.--Joe Quick 16:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I wonder if there are articles out there with tags on them that have been there for a year or more! D. Matt Innis 16:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Leptotes
Hey Matt. From what I understood Joe Quick and Daniel Mietchen are checking it out, but the approval time has been put off as it seems Daniel is busy these days. Dalton Holland Baptista 02:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay, then you are in good hands! I didn't read the talk page, shame on me.. I'll check in right before approval time. By the way, I really like your work, keep it coming! D. Matt Innis 02:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Daniel Mietchen said he'd be ready to sign on after he's looked over the sources. Chris Day is involved, so I expect he'll be number 3.  Otherwise, Daniel can do a single editor approval. --Joe Quick 13:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Joe. I should've known you'd have it all under control. I'll concentrate on other things until the 20th. D. Matt Innis 13:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Matt, as this is the first article I send to approval and because it is also the first on Botany, I suppose it is a good experience on finding the best way of displaying this type of information on CZ so I have some doubts. The first is: I sent a dated version of the article for approval, however, we have corrected some little things thereafter. When you set the version to be shown you will get the latest one, right? Other thing is are the subpages also locked or I'll be able to edit them in the future? I ask because I have some ideas about the best way to have the info there which are are not settled as yet, have to try and see. Dalton Holland Baptista 14:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Dalton, on your first question - I will use the version that is in the metadata template, so it will be necessary for the version number to be updated by someone and that all three editors approve the version that is in the template. I need to see evidence of that on the talk page at least. If I don't see that all three have approved the version in the template, I will not perform the approval.  Second - The subpages will not be locked, even if they are included in the 'cluster' region of the metadate template.
 * Does that help?
 * D. Matt Innis 14:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does, let's just remember of updating the date on metadata template and get the approvals. Actually most of the changes are typos. No major change has been made so far. I'll place a note on my to do list. Thank you, Dalton Holland Baptista 15:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, I should tell you that I will include copy edits (typos and misspellings) if I see that there is no content change. I can do that even after an approval if you catch something later (you don't need any editors to change a copy edit). D. Matt Innis 15:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User rename?
I didn't realize that a user rename was possible until I saw one that you submitted show up on the Recent Changes. Could I impose upon you to add a blank space between the period and the T in mine? Thanks! Bruce M.Tindall 20:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I can Bruce. Just as a disclaimer, though, I have no idea if your 'user contributions' will move over..  if you don't mind being the guinea pig so we find out, I'll be glad to use you! D. Matt Innis 21:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK with me. Thanks. Bruce M.Tindall 21:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, hold on to your hat, here goes! D. Matt Innis 21:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, Dr. Frankenstein, IT'S ALIVE!!!!! Bruce M. Tindall 22:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Mwah hah ha ha.. watch out, this could get dangerous!  :D. Matt Innis 23:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for deleting the extra template. I'll figure this out eventually. Neil Brick 02:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, you're doing fine. One day you'll be teaching the newbies! In the future, if you have something to delete, use the speedydelete template and a constable will delete it when they get a chance. D. Matt Innis 03:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And Thanks from me for the welcoming words and help! Celine Caquineau

Glich in democrat pparty approval?
For some reason, the approved page and the draft page are both showing up in the approved category. Did you do something different than normal? --Joe Quick 18:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem was a ghost category on the draft article. Not sure how that might have happened but a jog edit kecked it out. Chris Day 18:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Need help
Hi, Matt: Howard Berkowitz, the original creator of and main contributor to the Alkane article, has agreed that it can be merged into the much larger and more complete Hydrocarbons article as long as a redirect is created for Alkane to Hydrocarbons. For your information, Alkanes are just one type of Hydrocarbons.

I don't know how to merge a cluster into another cluster. It seem to me that the simplest thing is to delete the Alkane article and then create a redirect from Alkane to Hydrocarbons. Can you help me with this? Thanks, Milton Beychok 07:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already asked Chris for help on this and he referred me to you. Milton Beychok 16:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies for passing the buck, but I seem to remember you merging histories once before.  I do not know how to do that, or even if it is possible. If its too complicated i suggest we just cut and paste and leave the histories intact on the redirect pages. Chris Day 16:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me take a look. See ya there. D. Matt Innis 16:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * so let me get this straight. You delete one page.  Move the second page to the new home.  Finally restore the old edits.  This last bit is what I am unsure about.  How do you do that? Is there a box to click that ask if you want to restore old edits?  And if they get restored, how do they end up mingling together?  Are the two histories all mixed up? Chris Day 17:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is exactly the pattern, and, yes, on any deleted page, when you go to that page and click the 'delete' tag it will bring you to a page with a list of deleted edits and all you have to do is click to restore and follow the instructions. The last step is to make an edit to bring the histories together (this is the one that if you forget it looks scary).  The histories are merged according to 'date' so they will intermix if the articles were edited on or around the same dates. D. Matt Innis 17:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, I'm thinking if an article does have subpages, it might be necessary to delete all the subpages, then move the entire cluster... and then restore all the subpages... scary though. I would like to try it on an easy one firts.  Of course, it has never been done anywhere else, because subpages are our invention, I think. D. Matt Innis 17:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably not our invention but we are the first to have them as an integral part of all articles. You're right about having to delete all the subpages. Have you noticed that on the metadata page, near the top,  I added a link to make it easy to identify all the subpages and subsubpages in a cluster?  That might help a lot if you need to do it in the near future. The element pages are horrible since they have masses of properties subpages.  I really don't like that style at all.  I'd much have all the properties stored in the metadata. I'd say that is too much of a good thing (checkout Template:Calcium/Metadata) Chris Day 17:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent about the link on the subpages! Now all we need is to have one button to delete them all!)  Then restore them all!!)  I know, you can't blame a guy for dreaming..D. Matt Innis 23:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hydrodesulfurization due for final Approval today
Matt, just a reminder that Hydrodesulfurization is due for your final magic touch today. I am not sure whether I should be reminding you or Joe Quick now that he is the Approvals Manager ... so I will notify him as well. Milton Beychok 14:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Milton Beychok 02:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Too bad Ben Franklin wasn't #100, since he's on the $100
I'm sure you already knew, but he's up for approval today. :-) --Joe Quick 20:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but I was not going to act on it until I heard from our unofficial? Approval Manager! Are all the ducks in a row? D. Matt Innis 23:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, official. Still working on the details.  The only open question on that article is something I happen to know something about, and I'd say it is best as it stands.  So let's include the copyedits since Russell's nomination and go ahead (as of right now, all changes since nomination are copyedits). --Joe Quick 03:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hopefully, even if you didn't know anything about it, it would be ready ;-) I'll take care of it now! D. Matt Innis 03:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing privileges
Hi Matt. I could only get to your talk page thru the hard way: typing your name in the small box. I would like to add more biographical/interests info into my user page, but how? Cesar Tort 15:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, Let's get you running better. I've sent you an email, so check it and we'll go from there. D. Matt Innis 21:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I am running better now. Have let you know thru email. Thanks! Cesar Tort 07:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to upload a single self-made image to have it in my user page, but I ignore if that is ok with CZ? Cesar Tort 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your welcome to put a picture of yourself on your user page, so long as it is family friendly! D. Matt Innis 23:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Great! The problem is that every time I try to upload the photo I get CZ's error message that the image has no JPG extension, when in fact it has. Cesar Tort 23:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Family friendly"? Hmmm, I've been wondering why we've never seen a pic of Howard anywhere! Hayford Peirce 23:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hehe, or mine! Cesar, I know we can upload it (in fact Hayford's is a jpg).  Make sure that there aren't any strange symbols in the name of the file... maybe rename it something simple and let me know if that helps. D. Matt Innis 23:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeap! It did work now. Thanks again! Cesar Tort 00:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

approvals reminders
Milt Beychok and Paul Wormer have three articles coming through the pipes in the next few days. All should be ready to go. Today is vapor pressure, tomorrow is relative volatility, and Thursday is specific heat ratio. Thanks for your help! --Joe Quick 17:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help! I will be walking Hayford through vapor pressure tonight! D. Matt Innis 20:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Does he get breathing gear while you do this? Howard C. Berkowitz 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good thinking, I'll bring a clothespin. Tomorrow will be the tough one with relative volatility.. I'll let him do that one alone while I stay behind the safe barrier :O D. Matt Innis 20:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Consider this my formal resignation from the Constabulary! Jacques-Yves Cousteau


 * Oops, you werent' supposed to see that, Jack! What have you done with Hayford! D. Matt Innis 20:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Flipper the Dolphin chewed away the ropes that held him captive to a giant coralhead and he swam to the surface! Hayford Peirce 21:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Dang, you are good! Never try to one-up a science fiction writer! D. Matt Innis 21:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Was that Flipper the Dolphin or Artificial Flipper the Dolphin? (Try to ignore the ad at the beginning.)--Joe Quick 03:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Something has gone awry with approval of Vapor pressure
Matt, I just checked (9:00 PM PST) and Vapor pressure has now been approved. However, there is no Draft page and there is no Talk page. What happened??? Milton Beychok 04:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hehe, hang in there, Milt, I'm training Hayford and we're not quite finished, yet! D. Matt Innis 04:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A Suth'rn Belle, pr'haps, has the vapors? Howard C. Berkowitz 04:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * He has been down thar quite awhile, suh, maybe we should pull him up?! D. Matt Innis 04:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks purty danged done tuh me, suh! Johnny Weissmiller


 * Not quite, you still have to protect, take another deep breath, put the clothespin on and dive back in. D. Matt Innis 04:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Done and done. And I'm out of my diving bell and into a dry martini! Hayford Peirce 04:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

About recent edits of Specific heat ratio which is due for approval in two days from now
Matt, I just want to let you know that Daniel Mietchen has (a few hours ago) made a number of edits to the Specific heat ratio article and that I agree with them. Most of them were just what I would consider to be minor copy edits. He also moved one of the sections out of the article and made it into a new article ... with which I have no objection.

He also indicated a preference for using the Greek letter kappa ($$\kappa$$) rather than the Roman letter k to represent specific heat ratios so I made that change myself.

I don't believe any of those edits warrant changing the approval date, but I wanted to let you know of them. Regards, Milton Beychok 16:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Milt, thanks for keeping me informed. Make sure to let Paul know he needs to change the version number in the metadata template to show (and document) that he still approves of the changes. D. Matt Innis 16:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Matt, I informed Paul (see his Talk page) and he has now updated the version number of the article to be approved as you suggested. Milton Beychok 18:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There you go, sounds like we are set! As long as Joe sees nothing wrong with the process, then we're set for a go tomorrow. D. Matt Innis 19:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. :-) Joe Quick 23:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the hi!
It is good to know there's life out there! Howard C. Berkowitz 18:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm HERE! On the other side of the alphabet! D. Matt Innis 19:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

New documents
I'm reading them now. At first scan, they are much more about CIA than the military, and more detailed in the techniques. In the interest of neutrality, they also contain at least some specific cases where information was gained.

There are legal nuances here, but I have to study them in more detail. The Convention against Torture bars giving the impression as well as the actuality of severe pain, physical damage or death, but the legal opinions appear &mdash; and I need to study the rationale &mdash; that U.S. law permits "the impression" as long as there is no actual harm or severe pain.

Collaboration certainly would be welcome. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool. The news gave the impression that there was at least one guy that they did get some kind of permission to use physical harm... Obama said it was part of an unfortunate dark past (or something like that). It's way to intense for me to fathom, but I do look forward to seeing how you piece it together. D. Matt Innis 01:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

mixed messages
Just making sure you wanted this one deleted. D. Matt Innis 14:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No do not delete that one. it is used as a preload for the deletion template. Although given how many times it has been deleted maybe I'll change the strategy ;) Chris Day 19:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hehe, we don't have a speedy-don't-delete category! D. Matt Innis 20:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to make the warning more obvious. Is there no way to make the characters BIGGER also? Hayford Peirce 20:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we've now got it the right size -- can we *center* both lines of text neatly? I'm sure there's a simple thingee to put around each end, like this baby or some such.... Hayford Peirce 21:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Chris, but *I* just did it! I really did! I found the this thingee  and put it around it and saved it, and then I see that YOU did it first! By what, 2 nanoseconds?! Grrrrrrrrrr! (Thanks anyway, hehe) Hayford Peirce 22:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * i believe you. Glad to seeing you figuring these things out so fast! Chris Day 22:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem with application as editor
I have an account as an author at Citizendium. Based on a previous suggestion by you, D.Volk and D.Mietchen I am trying to  apply for the role of Editor. However, while preparing the application, I accidentally typed in my email account name as stalluri@gmail.com instead of talluri.sekhar@gmail.com. Unfortunately, the system is not allowing me to fix this typo; so I am unable to resubmit the application!

I checked the Chemistry workgroup because my Ph.D. was awarded by a Chemistry Department; however, my primary area of expertise (biological NMR/biophysical chemistry) is interdisciplinary, therefore, I am not sure which workgroup to sign up for. Sekhar Talluri 18:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm another Constable, like Matt. I've just looked at your application and I've been *trying* to change the email but am apparently unable to. I *think* that the easiest thing to do is for me to *reject* your application. As soon as you receive notice that it has been rejected, then you make another application, this time with the correct email address. There *may* be other ways around this, but I don't know what they are. But I won't reject the current application until you reply here that it is all right to do so. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 18:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. Thanks. Sekhar Talluri 19:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My request for becoming a chemistry editor
Matt, when you deleted my request from Larry's talk page, you commented that it should be sent by email. Did you do so? If not, should I send Larry an email? Milton Beychok 02:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Milt. Yes, you should apply by email to personnel AT citizendium.org. Normally you would show a CV and other credentials, but since you are already an editor, that might not be necessary. It is all very private and constables don't have any way of knowing who has applied or been denied. I dropped a note to them and maybe that will help hurry things along, but ultimately, they work at their own pace. D. Matt Innis 03:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Talkpagetext
Hi Matt,

I haven't a clue who has permissions to edit pages in the MediaWiki namespace and who doesn't, but I'm assuming that you do and I'd like to request that a change be made.

At the top of all talk pages, the page MediaWiki:Talkpagetext is used as an editintro. And it says, below the blue box, "...place the template at the top of the page...".

As you'll obviously be aware... the subpages template shouldn't be used (and doesn't work) except in the main namespace. So this message should only be shown for talk pages in the Talk namespace, not, for example, in the User_talk namespace or the Template_talk namespace.

I suggest that the last line, currently

...removed...

be replaced by

...removed...

Any objections? If not, can you do it? -- Caesar Schinas 10:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Caesar. I have no objections to your reasoning and I can do it, but I think you can do.  How about giving it a try and let me know if you can't. D. Matt Innis 00:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No; It's protected. All I can do is view the source. All pages in the MediaWiki namespace seem to be protected, unfortunately... Caesar Schinas 06:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. If you think of any more, just let me know. You can always bring them up in the forum if you come up with one that might need some input from others as well. D. Matt Innis 13:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Matt. Caesar Schinas 16:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Matt, part of that sentence referred to by Caesar now displays above the subpage banner and part of it displays below the subpage banner. Is this something that Chris could fix? Milton Beychok 20:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha! That will teach me not to doublecheck!  Yes, Chris would have been able to fix it, too, but all that needed to be done was add the tl to the subpages.   Thanks for the heads up. D. Matt Innis 22:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that; I think it was caused by me messing up the copy-pasting of the nowiki tags. But it's better with tl anyway. Caesar Schinas 08:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

find-and-replace bot
Hi Matt,

I don't know whether you're the right person to ask this, but Hayford suggested that you might be.

I have just run a python script from pywikipediabot to replace all instances of  by , the idea being to merge TOC-left and TOC-right into one template, TOC. But it clutters up the recent changes so much... that I thought I'd better confirm that this is acceptable behaviour before I do any more!

Can you tell me whether this is OK?

Should I be doing this from an account with bot status, and if so, what are the requirements for getting one?

Thanks... Caesar Schinas 07:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW, there were about 50 pages using TOC-left. The next thing I'd like to replace is TOC-right. 1200 pages use it... Obviously I'd do them slowly, to avoid straining the server, but a change like that really might be better done from a bot account. Caesar Schinas 08:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (See also - a query from Milton on my talk page regarding the specific issue of TOC-right.) Caesar Schinas 09:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I am not very familiar with the production and use of bots, but I am very glad to see that you, Caesar, are. I would be inclined to let you further develop a bot building process that would include allowing a bot to have it's own account. User:Jitse Niesen did this at least a year ago that added subpages to all the articles, so I think we have a precedent to allow you to do so as well. I, however, will be learning as we go as well, so be patient with me as you explain the process - including that we have to have a way to test the bot and stop it in case it goes awry. Are you familiar with these kind of precautions? D. Matt Innis 20:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the first thing to say is that in this instance I'm not really talking about the normal meaning of the word bot. Generally, a bot will run repeatedly and automatically - like Jitse's subpagination bot. What I'm talking about is a script which will I will run once, under direct supervision, from my computer, which will connect to CZ and make the same change to many different pages. When finished it will not run again unless I run it again, from scratch. I have run it a few times already to change just a few pages, but I thought I'd better check with someone before using it a lot.
 * The thing about a bot account is that it has slightly different characteristics from an ordinary user account - see Special:ListGroupRights. The main differences are that it can make more changes than an ordinary user in the same period of time, and that it doesn't show up in the recent changes by default.
 * I have seen Jitse's bots - certainly, I am capable of creating bots of this sort, which would be able to check a page where emergency stop messages could be left (though I haven't done it before on a public wiki). But in this case I'm not really talking about a bot as such, just a script running under my direct supervision.
 * Personally, I don't think it needs to be run from a bot account in this instance, but I know that on WP they would say that it does, so I just want to make sure before running it on a lot of pages.
 * Another example of the sort of changes I might make is replacing all the CC media licence templates with a new version. Joe Quick reckons this would be OK if I tell people first.
 * Caesar Schinas 06:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well' I'm running my script on a few templates. If anyone wants me to stop just leave a note on my talk page or send me an email. Caesar Schinas 06:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see a problem with it. -- Jitse Niesen 07:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jitse, it's good to have an opinion from someone with experience in running bots here on CZ.
 * Hayford actually gave me offical approval for running this script the other day. :-)
 * By the way, does the Subpagination Bot still do anything? It doesn't seem to have done anything for a year or so now.
 * Caesar Schinas 07:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

homeopathy reapproval
A couple of the people who have been working on the Homeopathy draft have suggested that it is now ready for reapproval. I haven't looked closely at the changes myself, but it sounds like the changes have mainly been aimed at clarifying or explaining the scientific position. If you agree with the changes and feel that the article is ready for reapproval, do you think you could add your name to the appropriate field in the "ToApprove" section of the metadata template? Thanks much. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 13:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but look at the Gasoline Approval page....
It seems to bme that the instructions are unclear or wrong on this point then.

The first thing we do with the Metadata, after changing the status, is to write the names of the Editors into the Approvals section below. Then, or before that, we highlight and Copy a lot of the stuff above. And *that* stuff has the Pipes in it! And that's the stuff that we then paste into the Approval page. Along with the Pipes!

If not, then the instructions need to be rewritten....

Or so it seems to me.... Hayford Peirce 01:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The editor signatures are not supposed to be piped in the metadata either. A few editors seem to understand this, the rest I changed as I found them. No big deal, but if we are writing instructions, we might as well write them right (or right them - pun intended :) D. Matt Innis 02:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Ah," said the blind man, as he picked up the hammer and saw. So there should be NO PIPED sigs anywhere, in either the ToApprove or the Approved? Gotcha. So, whenever I see them in the approval process, I should change them to non-piped? If this is indeed the case, I will think about this and then probably next Monday or Tuesday, when I come back from a side-trip, I will put this too into the ever-evolving (and improving, I hope) instructions.... Hayford Peirce 05:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Please weigh in on this with your comments
Matt, please look at my comments here on the forums. Milton Beychok 04:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up, Milt. It looks like you guys have it worked out.  Let me know if you need me. D. Matt Innis 23:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Making corrections to the Article of the Week
Hi, Matt: Regarding your comment in the forum that you corrected a typo in an article that was an article of the week and it then showed up on the Article of the Week. As I am sure you know, the same correction could have also been made directly to any article on the CZ home page. Milton Beychok 16:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hehe, the ole KISS method ;-) D. Matt Innis 17:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * By Jove, you've got it! Keep It Simple, Sam. Milton Beychok 18:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, something like that :-D. Matt Innis 18:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I revised CZ:Article of the Week. Provided place for anyone to simply make nominations. Then the program Administrators will do the transclusions.
I just revised the CZ:Article of the Week to provide a place (and instructions) for any CZ author or editor to simply add the names of new nominees.

I did NOT make any revisions to the transcluded versions of the articles that were added by Daniel Mietchen, Caesar Chinas or myself. All I did was provide a new section where anyone can simply add new nominees without having to transclude them.

I also reworded some section headers (and relocated one section) to make clear that Administrators of the "Article of the Week" initiative would do the transclusions.

I did that because I felt many authors and editors would be reluctant to make nominations if they had to do the transclusion themselves.

I asked Caesar Chinas to review my revision. After he does, I will also revise "CZ:New Draft of the Week" similarly. Milton Beychok 23:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds reasonable, and Simple. D. Matt Innis 23:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

About Ancient Celtic music
Matt, I noticed your transclusion of Ancient Celtic music as requested by Daniel Mietchen. I don't think that Daniel Mietchen meant to include the Disambiguation box template (at the top) to be included in the transcluded version. Perhaps you should check with him. Other than that, it looks like you did what he wanted done. Milton Beychok 01:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, he didn't do it on the draft! I'll move the tag. Thanks for checking.  You're right, though, it can get time consuming and confusing.  I don't think we want just anyone doing this. D. Matt Innis 01:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Now you know why I "debated" it so vigorously on the forums. Milton Beychok 02:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do. Thanks. D. Matt Innis 02:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Created CZ:Markup tags for partial transclusion of selected text in an article so it can be referenced to
Matt, I just created CZ:Markup tags for partial transclusion of selected text in an article so that it could be referenced to when anyone asks what transclusion tags are. Milton Beychok 06:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Henry's Law
Go ahead and fix the boo-boo on the approved page. I re-approve it with the fix. David E. Volk 13:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Matt, I could sure use some feedback
Matt, please look at This thread in the forums. We need some feedback in that thread. Milton Beychok 06:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

gray box?
Hi, Matt, I see the change that you've made, removing the <code thingees, but I don't see any "gray box" that was there. Maybe something to do with our browser? I'm using Google Chrome.... Hayford Peirce 23:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh, maybe.. I put it back, do you see it now? I use IE 8.0. D. Matt Innis 23:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, they both look like nice yellow boxes to me, although the text font is a *little* different inside each one. The top one looks more like Courrier to me, and the bottom one has a tighter, more professional-looking font, the text isn't as long. Weird. Hayford Peirce 23:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * here it is on IE 8.0 the top one is with the <code D. Matt Innis 23:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, NOW I see the gray box *inside* the yellow box -- but, of course, only in the top one. Isn't it weird how the damn browsers give different result?! As far as I'm concerned, fix it so that it's best for IE, since that the one that most people use. Geez.... Hayford Peirce 23:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge
Thanks for the merging, Matt. Peter Schmitt 00:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, Peter, I can do those any time. There are some harder ones that might take me a little while to work through, but just let me know.  D. Matt Innis 00:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive
Hi, Matt. The cut & paste sounds like hard work, so I'll go for the other method. I click on my talk page's move tab & type in the name of the archive page, right? Ro Thorpe 00:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks. I might even remember how next time... Ro Thorpe 00:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, that's fine, thanks again. Ro Thorpe 01:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My pleasure, hopefully, it all made sense for you.. you were quick! D. Matt Innis 01:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Anthony.Sebastian approves 24-Jul-2009 version Scientific method
First class article. Anthony.Sebastian 17:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good news, Anthony, thanks! D. Matt Innis 01:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Delineating segments in MediaWiki
Matt: I type many items in articles I work on. They often include excerpts, abstracts, comments, or other long annotations. When I go back to edit a paragraph, say, I have a devil of a time finding the text. Sentences interrupted by long sections.

Can you think of some way to gray-out the sections, or otherwise delineate them, for ease of distinguishing them and the text?

Thanks. Anthony.Sebastian 02:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, Anthony, that is a really good idea! I have no idea about how to do something like that, but will look into it and see what I can find.  That would make editing so much easier! D. Matt Innis 04:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Matt. I think coders have a term for such kind of delineation, but I didn't store it. Something like 'occlusion', perhaps. Anthony.Sebastian 21:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll look for that, too. I spent most of my free time last night searching the Wikimedia site with no luck (though there are some text coloring extensions available, none seem to address this issue.  Maybe with the 'occlusion', I might be able to get a hit for something useful.  D. Matt Innis 01:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This extension might be worth considering. Try editing one of the paes there using the "rich text" option once you're in edit mode. --Joe Quick 12:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, that is neat. Check out the reference I made in the sandbox "Hey, what us this all about".  It replaces everything within the with a  so it is at least not in the way.. D. Matt Innis 13:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, you've lost me. Do I need to write my articles in a different editor? Or what? Can I replace with a  in the regular MediaWiki editor, and if so, how would I edit ? As you can see, I need explanations as if I were a complete newbie, 6 years old.  Thanks for working on this, greatly appreciated. Anthony.Sebastian 15:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW: I'd be happy if, in the MediaWiki editor, I could color the text between . That would signal me to ignore the colored text when editing the article text. Anthony.Sebastian 16:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Matt, I'm still in the dark. Anthony.Sebastian 20:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, Anthony, I didn't mean to leave you hanging! If you go to that link that I gave above, it brings you to a sandbox that lets you switch back and forth between wikimarkup and a texteditor.  They seem to have a solution for the by replacing it with an .  If we did that, it would require that we add that extension to our software (which I have no idea if anyone is available to do that).  The pros would be that it would allow people to edit who didn't know wikimarkup and maybe that would help us attract some editors that didn't have the time to learn. The cons would include that it adds a layer of complication that might be counterproductive, I guess.  I have not seen anything that just lets us change the color of the text between the, which I still think is our best choice, too.  D. Matt Innis 21:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Matt. Might make a good forum topic, see if anyone comes up with something. Anthony.Sebastian 00:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note my request for Speedy deletion
Hi, Matt: Please note my request that Heat Recovery Steam Generator be speedily deleted for the reasons stated in the template. Milton Beychok 14:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind. Hayford just deleted it. Milton Beychok 16:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hehe, I guess I'm the 'go-to guy' for !  D. Matt Innis 00:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about whether we can use this image?
Hello Mr. Innis. I found an image hosted on photobucket, but there's no way for me to find out about the original author and the copyright holder. The terms page seems to indicate that once the image is uploaded it is in public domain.

.

Just to be on the safe side, is there a way to qualify this image for fair use? Thank you very much. (Chunbum Park 05:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Hi Chunbum, the photobucket link seems to say that they respect the copyright holder's rights. Do you have the link that has the image with the owner?  So far it could go either way. D. Matt Innis 00:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. Thank you for helping me. I cannot find out who uploaded the image. It's a user by name of chtsai0923, I think. I don't think that the users can pick out a license like CC or copyrighted as in flickr. The page for this photo for example does not have anything regarding its copyright.


 * Does the following not state that all non-private contents on photobucket are on a free license equivalent to creative commons?

"By displaying or publishing ('posting') any Content on or through the Photobucket Services, you hereby grant to Photobucket and other users a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content marked 'private' will not be distributed outside the Photobucket Services. Photobucket and/or other Users may copy, print or display publicly available Content outside of the Photobucket Services, including without limitation, via the Site or third party websites or applications (for example, services allowing Users to order prints of Content or t-shirts and similar items containing Content)."


 * (Chunbum Park 03:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC))


 * You will still need to provide the link to the page that you got it from, though. And then I would link the 'policy' page as well so that when others come by to check it in the future, your reasoning can be evaluated. I have no idea if the photo that you gave me the first time is private because you have not provided me with its link on Photobucket.  Is it marked as private? D. Matt Innis 11:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. The link is provided at the image page. This is the link. I cannot find the "page" that would show the author & the albums in which it is contained, but I doubt that it is private.


 * I uploaded to test photobucket. This image is in a private folder, but still it is accessible by hyperlink.
 * This is not in a private folder.


 * As you can see, the 1st image is in a folder named "test," so the URL goes albums/ae51/chunbumpark/test/... The 2nd image is not in a folder, so the URL goes albums/ae51/chunbumpark/...


 * The image that we're concerned with is not in any folder, since its URL goes albums/u206/chtsai0923/.... Only way a file can be marked private is by putting it in a folder.


 * Doesn't this now prove that the image is under free license? (Chunbum Park 14:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC))


 * I found this guy's album page It is likely public domain, but to be sure, it would be best to email this guy and ask permission - especially since we don't have his real name (we need real names here). Then link that permission to the imported page and you will be fine.  If you can't get him to respond, check back with me and we'll see what else we can do. D. Matt Innis 15:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know, Chunbum, I looked for his email and you're right, apparently there is no way to get in touch with him from that site... I'm not sure whether we can use it or not... How about asking this question on the forum and see what others think?  D. Matt Innis 15:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I left a comment on the image page. He may respond, but you don't think that the image in its current state is free? (Chunbum Park 23:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC))


 * All I know is that we don't use images from wikipedia if they don't use their real names. The problem is that we don't know where they got the image.   They could have downloaded it from another site without properly attributing the source.  We need a real person to tell us that they took that picture and give us permission to use it, I think. D. Matt Innis 00:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I forgot about that. I'll just have to wait for him to respond. It's an awesome image! (Chunbum Park 14:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Catalog
I came across this: Catalog of political philosophers. Would it not be better if it became a catalog subpage of Political philosophy? --Paul Wormer 15:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, especially if the information was formatted differently, perhaps a table? D. Matt Innis 17:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Adams-Onis
Yes, we were saved by Hayford's typo. Ironically, I was just checking in after dinner. I wasn't looking over any one's shoulder.... really!! Russell D. Jones 22:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It took me forever to realize that Adam'a' not Adam's' ... i was looking for the 'i' typo! I couldn't find the deleted version :) D. Matt Innis 23:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the recovery. Looks good.  Russell D. Jones 23:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-approval of Grand Trunk Railway
I am quite willing to nominate the article for re-approval. How do I do it? Is it the same procedure as used for the first nomination? Milton Beychok 04:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Milton, it's exactly the same. I don't think I would worry about going as long, especially if you can get the same editors on board quickly.  If there is a disagreement about the new information, you can add some more time. D. Matt Innis 15:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

How to contact CZ technical people
Hi Matt,

About a week ago, I left a message for Greg Mullane asking him where I can get a copy of the version of the MW software running on CZ. I want to start familiarizing myself with it in case an extension for citations/references/bibliographies is desirable (see CZ:Wishlist/Citations%2C_References_and_Bibliographies). So far, he has not replied. I wonder if you might know: 1) is Greg still the active technical lead at CZ? If so, is there some way to contact him (as he doesn't appear to read his talk page). Or if he is busy and doesn't have time to reply, is there someone else on the technical team that might be able to answer my question? Thanks. Dan Nessett 14:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My overall suggestion for addressing *anyone* at CZ who does not appear to be reasonably active (easy to check by simply looking at the Recent Changes page from time to time) is to go to their User page and send them a email by clicking on the "E-mail this user" link in the Toolbox on the lower left of the page. They may not reply to the email, but the chances of them seeing it are probably pretty good. Hayford Peirce 16:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Dan, I have never had any luck getting through either unless the issue was really important, so I expect they have a "priority list" of their own ;-) However, we are told that we can get in touch with the technical guys when we have problems if we email bugs(AT)citizendium.org D. Matt Innis 17:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I just gave bugs a try. We'll see what happens. Dan Nessett 18:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

How do I move some messages from one thread to another?
Matt. I would like to move some of the messages in the thread, "try beta" @ Wikipedia" on the Technical issues forum to the thread "Recruiting more editors" in the Editors and editorial issues forum. I don't know if I can do that or if so, how. I know messages have been moved to a new thread, so it must be possible. If only an administrator can do that, would you be willing to? The messages to move are all those subsequent to and including reply #3 by me in the "try beta" @ Wikipedia" thread. This started a conversation that was off-topic and really belongs in the "Recruiting more editors" thread. Thanks. Dan Nessett 15:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I got it, Dan. CHeck it and make sure.  There might be some remarks remaining about beta, but I'm thinking that doesn't matter as much as the editor issue.  D. Matt Innis 19:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Charter drafting candidacy
Hi Matt,

Thanks for accepting your nomination to be a candidate for election to the drafting committee for the Citizendium charter.

If you'd like, there is a provision in the plan that provides a place for you to compose a position statement. You are not required to do this in order to be a candidate for election to the committee, but it would be helpful to others during the voting period. Even if you don't compose a statement before the election period concludes, should you be elected it might be helpful for other members of the committee to know what you feel are the most important issues to address with the draft. You can find a red link to the page where you can write your statement here, along with instructions for doing so.

If you have any questions, just let me know. --Joe Quick 15:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Text in Internet article has mysteriously disappeard
Matt,

Something mysterious has happened. Between two edits by Howard on the current Internet article, a large amount of text has disappeared. It doesn't appear Howard deleted it, since the change doesn't show a radical decrease in the amount of text in the article. However, it just isn't there any more. The two edits are text there and text not there. Dan Nessett 18:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Dan, this is an (occasionally) recurring problem that crops up once in a while, generally on Talk pages in which people are making rapid responses to each other. For some reason yet undiscovered text will sometimes disappear.  At first (about 8 months ago) this appeared to merely be hearsay anecdotes but it happened to ME a couple of times and I KNEW that I wasn't deleting other peoples messages.  Unfortunately, it was happening on talk pages that were quite contentious (homeopathy? child-abuse cults?) and it was easy for one Citizen to believe that some other Citizen was maliciously deleting his text.  Somewhere in the Forum, probably in the Technical or Bug sections, there are a couple of threads about this.  As I recall, we never did figure out precisely what was happening.  We did, however, finally document it enough to be certain that it really was a bug of some sort and not "enemy action". Hayford Peirce 18:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that is somewhat of a relief. I thought magic gremlins were at work :-D. So, how should we handle this? If I rollback the changes Howard made in his last edit, he might think I am getting out of line. There are reasons (which you know) why I don't want to do anything that may appear hostile. Dan Nessett 18:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Howard will understand, he was part of the issue last time it happened. Just make sure to leave a message int he edit summary and on the talk page and you'll be okay.  I seem to remember that it had something to do with the servers not being synchronized and the times were off.  Sometimes, two edits will actually appear out of order, too, i.e. a resposne to a question may show up before the question. D. Matt Innis 18:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't know all the conditions that produce it, but, for example, if you open an article section for editing, make no changes, and save, part or all of the rest of the article may disappear. While section editing is convenient, I often force myself to try to do full article to work around this bug -- that also helps, incidentally, on being able to see whether citations work correctly.


 * Hayford, it might have been Satanic child abuse with homeopathic doses of strange substances while under a hoaxed new moon. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, at the same time that Martin Cohen was trying to move it into the Philosophy Workgroup. Hayford Peirce 18:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * More seriously, yes, I think Howard is correct in saying that the bug *mainly* appeared when people were making edits within *sections* and not within the entire article. Exclusively? I can't remember.  But not editing sections by themselves seemed to make the problem vanish -- I haven't heard anyone bringing it up for several months now. Hayford Peirce 18:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) At least in this case no mystery happened. The diff between the two versions shows the text: It has not disappeared (and if you click edit the text is also present. It only does not show on the page! Why? The diff shows the reason in red: Where the displayed text ends a, so that the comment runs to the end of the page. Peter Schmitt 20:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha! And there you have it, another example of the dangers of assumption! D. Matt Innis 21:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good eyes Peter. I didn't even consider that. Dan Nessett 21:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just one more remark on the bug: As I experienced it, it happens if one edits a section, makes no changes, but saves it anyway. Then only this section gets saved - the rest of the page "disappears". Thus the file always will be smaller (a subset of the previous revision). I do not know if this happens every time when this situation occurs, or only occasionally. Peter Schmitt 23:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, has this been reported as a bug to bugs@citizendium? Dan Nessett 23:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC)Thanks, Peter, I do remember that. I hadn't realized that the section was the only thing remaining.  It has been a while since it's happened to me.  I might have been like Howard and just got in the habit of editing the entire page, bt I also sometimes hit "cancel" if I changed my mind.


 * Dan, at the time it was happening, we all flooded Larry, for sure, with emails and I can't imagine that we didn't drop a note to bugs, but I think we stopped complaining once we found out what was happening. D. Matt Innis 23:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * PS, I tried the section edit on this talk page and, sure enough, everything dissapeared but this section... it might be every time... (it also felt very strange to hit the save key when I made no edit, so I assume I rarely do it. D. Matt Innis 23:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

[unindent]

Well, when I left the last comment, I did edit the section and it didn't remove the other text on the page. Is there anyway to reliably force the bug to occur? I have just downloaded the CZ MW software and as we speak am figuring out how to modify the page table layout so the install script works correctly. Once I get that to work and have downloaded the CZ database dump I can work on the bug. However, it is hard to find bugs that are not reproducible. Dan Nessett 23:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's because you *did* edit the page. This time, click to edit the section (but don't make any changes), then click save.  I'll bet $50 the rest of the page dissapears  ;-) D. Matt Innis 23:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right. That is good (in a perverse way), because that means the bug is reproducible and therefore it should be possible to find it (says the impertinent developer right before he completely embarrasses himself by failing to do so) :-D After I get the CZ installation completed and install Netbeans (a really nice IDE for PHP and other languages), I will spend some time trying to figure out what the problem is. Dan Nessett 23:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I take check and debit cards only, but I'll have to re-imburse Peter and Howard for their attention paid.. :-D. Matt Innis 00:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, a Constable taking money from the Citizens? I think that better be reported to the Precinct Captain and the Watch Committee.... Hayford Peirce 00:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, Now that means I'm going to have to pay off Hayford, too!! $50 doesn't go as far as it used to... D. Matt Innis 00:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

[unindent]

It looks like the section edit bug is cured in a MW version later than 1.13.2 (which CZ uses). Take a look at: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/45809. If so, then we need to integrate this fix into our version. However, there is a problem (in fact a couple of problems). First, CZ has no subversion repository to control code base updates. Second, CZ doesn't (as far as I can tell) have anything like bugzilla installed, so we can report bugs and bug fixes in an orderly manner. Finally, CZ doesn't have a test wiki where we can test fixes before going live. I emailed Greg and asked him how we deal with bugs and bug fixes this morning, but no reply yet. Dan Nessett 21:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Dan, for all that work. Greg is definitely the one to contact if you were able to get through to him earlier.  You already know more than I do, so that makes you the onwikiCZexpert.  Keep me informed about what we have to do and where you are in the process. D. Matt Innis 23:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No word from Greg yet. But, I would like to ask permission to try to find other Citizens who have MW software development experience. (Normally, I would just go ahead and do this, but the last few days have left me gun-shy of doing anything but minor edits without first running it past someone in authority). I would do this by starting a thread in the technical forum asking whether there are others who have such experience. Do you have a problem with that? Dan Nessett 17:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do that, and anything else that you want that all authors are allowed to do, including applying for editorship and accepting a nomination on the Charter committee :) D. Matt Innis 17:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It was my intention when the Internet subgroup formed to apply for editorship in both computers and engineering. But, Howard and I don't work well together. I really don't want to spend my time in endless forum and talk page discussions, which is why I have returned to my original reason for working on CZ - to develop some mathematics articles and get them approved. In regards to the Charter committee, I was nominated, but declined, since I don't think I have enough experience with CZ yet to usefully serve in that capacity (recent events seem to confirm my lack of experience :-D). Dan Nessett 17:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I know, which is exactly why you should be on the committee. Your input would be priceless.  We have lost literally thousands of authors and have no idea why.  Perhaps you might be able to shed some light and have some ideas on that subject. D. Matt Innis 17:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is I have served on committees like this before. They are huge time sinks and generally consist of discussions much like those that drove the Internet/Internetworking subgroup controversy. I would be happy to provide input to the committee on any topic it chooses, but the prospect of spending the next 6-12 months in agonizing, fussy debates about minutia gives me the cold shivers. Dan Nessett 17:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hehe, me, too, but we have a 4 week time limit... I think I can live without food and water and sleep that long... but, look at it this way - the internet subgroup discussion was about two weeks! :) D. Matt Innis 18:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

[unindent]

Ok, the time limit is a mitigating factor. But, I am still skeptical - what if the committee doesn't have anything useful in 4 weeks? I would feel a lot better if we started out with a draft that we then had 4 weeks to clean up. To motivate the committee, if it doesn't come to agreement in 4 weeks, the original draft goes to the community for vote. As someone once wrote, "There is nothing like the prospect of going to the guillotine to concentrate the mind." Given such a (or a similar) deadline enforcer, I might reconsider. Dan Nessett 18:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Why has CZ lost so many authors?
This is an intriguing question that, when you originally asked it, kept nagging me at the back of my mind. Of course, the definitive way of discovering the answer is to ask those who have left what were their reasons. However, here is what I believe may be a contributing factor.

One of the differentiators between WP and CZ is the latter is supposed to be expert friendly. We require experts to identify themselves and the whole scribble culture of WP is deprecated. However, there is one characteristic of experts that seems to have been missed when CZ was first designed - experts tend to work alone or in groups that fundamentally agree with one another. What I mean by that is even when there is a team working on a problem, members of the team share a common viewpoint. Experts have a very low tolerance of the committee approach to the production of explanatory text in their areas of specialization. Generally, experts in the same field with different points of view do not like each other.

People attracted to committee work generally are not experts. They are bureaucrats. They are much more interested in the exercise of power through the use of some legal or quasi-legal procedural machinery than in producing works of excellence. That is not to say there is no place for them in society. Compromise is the lubricant of democracy. Without it, societies (or in the case of CZ, communities) degenerate into chaotic mean-streets, exemplified by WP and Somalia. However, for an expert compromise on a point of knowledge is anathema. The expert deeply understands (or believes he/she deeply understands) a subject and the whole idea of using compromise as a tool for articulating that understanding is abhorrent.

So, when an expert comes to CZ and begins working on an encyclopedia article, he/she expects to develop it according to a particular understanding of the subject it covers. The idea of compromising on that understanding is intolerable. If forced to do so, the expert leaves.

This seems to me to suggest that CZ's governance must accommodate both experts and the democratic machinery that ensures the fair and neutral point-of-view presentation required for its health. As I have suggested elsewhere, one way to accomplish this is to host encyclopedia articles that are the result of compromise and which present all points of view fairly. It is unlikely that experts will spend much time on these, that time most likely being given to ensure their point-of-view is accurately represented in those articles. Experts are much more interested in presenting their own hard won understanding of a subject. These works, I think, are also necessary for the health of CZ and fit well into its article hierarchy as signed subpages associated with neutral point-of-view encyclopedia articles. Setting up this kind of structure would, in my view, attract more authors with significant expertise, who would enhance CZ's ability to attract those who are good at writing encyclopedia articles. Dan Nessett 19:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, see now, why don't you just put that in your nomination/statement and see if you get voted in. That way you'll know that you have others that agree and they want you to work in that direction. If you don't get elected, then that says something, too. D. Matt Innis 20:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * All good arguments, but they fail to address my major concern - getting sucked into a time sink with little prospect of a useful result. :-D Dan Nessett 21:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Definition of life: "time sink with little prospect of useful result, see: drain suck"
 * D. Matt Innis 21:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * :-D Funny. And closer to the truth than I care to admit. Dan Nessett 21:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Dan, your essay at the start of this thread is extremely well written and articulates your opinions quite thoroughly. Those of us who are Editors were given that role because we were considered to be experts. Since I am an Editor, I will readily admit that I may be biased ... with that said, your essay came across to me as saying you believe CZ would lose less people if we had less Editors (i.e., experts) because all experts are unwilling to be "team players" and compromize. Have I got that right? If that is correct, then isn't that exactly the same as Wikipedia's dislike of experts? Milton Beychok 22:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Milt. No, I am not saying that. There are experts, of which you are probably one, who have altruistic motives and contribute to enterprises such as CZ from a spirit of community service. I also have expertise in areas that I have not mentioned, since I find statements like "Wow, look at my credentials" to be very distasteful. So, I will modify my comments and say most experts are not interested in writing or editing collaboratively with people they don't know or trust.


 * I certainly don't think we need less editors. We need more. And we need them to edit, which I think you are doing. That is, editors should be working with authors to move articles to approved status. Editors should also write, but if their writing takes up so much of their time that they can't edit, then they really are not doing their job.


 * I decided to exit the Wikimadness after some very bad experiences with various self-appointed "guardians of consensus", who offered their opinions as established fact and generally demonstrated their ignorance. I do not want CZ to become anything close to that. I want it to attract more experts and more encyclopedia article writers. My comments were written under the assumption that everyone at CZ wants that. However, it is never useful to live in a fantasy land. CZ is not doing well. WP has more than 2 orders of magnitude more articles than CZ. Even if only 1% of those are of high quality, they are soundly beating us.


 * My number one goal is to attract all kinds of experts to CZ, those with altruistic motives and those who are not so motivated. It is my view that the number in the first set is so much less than the number in the second set that we simply do not have the luxury to focus on recruiting only them. Dan Nessett 23:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My own feeling is that CZ would have more Authors if we had *more* Editors. Potential Authors would see that there were competent Editors in the fields that interest them and that they were actually *doing* things.  I think you'd have a bunch of people writing articles about, oh, individual baseball players, say, if you had two or three highly expert Editors who were clearly knowledgeable about baseball, were doing articles of their own, *and* were encouraging Authors in various ways.  Maybe not, but I don't think that anyone could argue that our current *lack* of Editors is encouraging the creation of more articles.... Hayford Peirce 23:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for Wikipedians (of whom I too am a former member) but if *all* members of CZ aren't altruists, then I don't know how to qualify them. (Well, OK, some of the Eduzendium students.) Is it the lordly salaries that we command that keep us here?  The high pay-per-word that we receive?  The universal glory and esteem we enjoy in the outside world as being world-famous Citizens?  Perhaps.  Or perhaps there are other motives.... Hayford Peirce 23:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm here for the free booze. Jones

[unindent]

"My own feeling is that CZ would have more Authors if we had *more* Editors". Yes, I agree. In fact let me state that more emphatically. A strategy of attracting experts to write encyclopedia articles is much less likely to succeed that one that attracts encyclopedists to summarize the work done by experts. And to say this once more, an expert does not have to have an advanced degree or any degree for that matter. An expert is someone who knows a subject in depth, whether that is formally recognized by an academic institution or not.

"if *all* members of CZ aren't altruists, then I don't know how to qualify them." My point is: that currently is a significant problem. If we hope to succeed by only attracting altruists, we are planning to fail. Perhaps since we all are contributing out of a sense of community service, we think most people will do that if we can just let them know we are here. Unfortunately, it is a well demonstrated characteristic of the human condition that people generally look out after their own interests. There are very few people in the world like Mother Teresa. Dan Nessett 00:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What we need is more active people and it doesn't matter if they are authors, editors, experts, non-experts, or whatever! Instead of discussing why people have left, we should be discussing how to get more new active people. Look at the list of nominees for the charter drafting committee ... a list of about 30 names, about 5 of whom are no longer active (including one or two who left under unhappy circumstances). The remaining 25 comprise about all of our really active prolific contributors ... that just is not enough! Most people in the real world are busy earning a living and/or raising a family. In my mind, we need to find a way to reach retired people who, like myself, have a lot of time on their hands and could easily devote at least 4-5 hours a day to CZ. How to do that, I don't know ... but I am convinced that is where we should concentrate our efforts to recruit now members. Does anyone know how to get an article published in the newsletter of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) or any similar organization? Milton Beychok 03:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point, Milton. Let's concentrate on the positive side of the equation and the problems will solve themselves. D. Matt Innis 03:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely, there has to be many many ways to access these people. I've brought it up to several of my patients (thinking they would like something to do), but they seem to be less computer savvy.  I'm sure, though, that there is a class of retired people that this woul dbe the perfect way for them to "sink some time" :) D. Matt Innis 03:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "...we need to find a way to reach retired people who, like myself, have a lot of time on their hands." I couldn't agree more. I am a retired person and I spend about 4-5 hours a day working on CZ. When I said attract experts, I didn't necessarily mean people who are working for a living. Howerver, there is something of a hole in your proposal. You say we need to recruit retired people and then suggest we put a letter in the AARP newsletter. Good so far. What do you intend to say? I have given up a lot of activities I was involved in to spend time working on CZ. Initially I did it because I wanted to do some work on orthogonal functions that I ran into while studying quantum mechanics. I then saw an opportunity to help CZ in other ways and put my study of QM aside in order to do that. I also put my music composition work aside and some fiction writing aside. You can bet most retired people have other things to do as well.


 * So, the question is why would a retired expert want to get involved in CZ? I am not being negative on this. In order to attract people, you have to have something attractive. A couple of retired experts I tried to recruit said no thanks. They simply couldn't see why the time on their hands should be spent writing articles for CZ when those articles were going to be changed around by someone else. Retired experts aren't any different in that regard than active experts. Dan Nessett 03:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm in a community that has an odd mix of retirees, tourists in summer, and fishermen. Personally, I'm underemployed rather than retired, and indeed am timesharing CZ and a consulting project on cloud computing at the moment -- my client let me put some of the basic work into an article, but now we are doing the proprietary part.


 * It's a bit frightening, but I'm a youngster at some of the political and related groups. Part of the challenge is that the computer-literate retirees also tend to be activists, so neutrality may be an issue. I will, however, be giving some lectures, starting with (a title picked by the publicity people) "Torture in Perspective". If I can, I'll be doing an objective series on intelligence and national security, and will be appealing to people that the best case can be an objective one.


 * Sometimes, the computer literacy is used to hang out at Fellow True Believer blogs. How does one convert that? Howard C. Berkowitz 03:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Dan, in a way, you have made my point. You are retired and despite having a number of other interests, you chose to devote 4-5 hours a day to CZ. I don't understand the viewpoint about "CZ articles were going to be changed around by others". In the almost two years I've contributed to CZ, I have written over 100 articles ... so far none of them have been significantly changed unilaterally by any others. Of course, there have been many revisions which were made after discussion and mutual agreement, but that's all. And along the way, I have had intercourse (non-sexual, of course) with a number of very interesting and very talented people. I'm a couple of decades older than you and somewhat physically limited ... and I would have gone quite bonkers by now had it not been for CZ. I am quite certain there are many other retirees out there who would join CZ if we can find a way to reach out to them. As for AARP, I am not a member and it is difficult for a non-member to have a voice there ... but I do plan to try. If you ever get down from Fremont to Newport Beach, I sure would like to get together. Milton Beychok 06:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting discussion in an unexpected place. I stumbled on it by accident. Why don't you move it to the forum, Matt? --Paul Wormer 07:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * shhh, we were hiding. ;-) D. Matt Innis 15:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We have a current possibility to get in contact with them, since American Association of Retired Persons happens to be part of Shamira's Eduzendium course on interest groups, the initial draft being due somewhere around next week. There is certainly nothing wrong with asking them for additional materials (images, multimedia, history, vision etc.) and to post these materials at the article's talk page. Once the contact is established, it can of course lead to further interaction. --Daniel Mietchen 08:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that is clever, like a fox.. haha, go for it Daniel (but gotta wait till the class is over). D. Matt Innis 15:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Milt. When you said you were 2 decades older than I, you intrigued me, since I am no spring chicken. So, I went to your user page and quite frankly, I am impressed. You have written 2 books, have 25 published articles and are a Fellow of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. You have made significant contributions to CZ, writing over 100 articles. You are CZ's Mother Teresa.


 * I am sure age and experience have taught you that just hoping something happens won't make it so. You don't just hope you can build a Petroleum Refinery. It takes planning, understanding and a lot of perseverance (because as you indicate on your user page, nothing goes according to plan). What I am suggesting is we need to apply those same principles here. And the first thing to do is take stock of the state of CZ. I have stated some of this before, but it is useful to restate these things for emphasis.


 * Go to Special:Statistics. There you will see that "[w]e have 12,152 live articles, of which 114 are approved and 979 are developed." I don't know how many editors we have, but I would say that it is more than 25. CZ was founded in the fall of 2006, which means it is approaching its 3rd birthday. So in the course of 3 years, (using the lower bound of 25 editors) each editor has on average moved about 4 1/2 articles into the approved state. That is around 1 per year. Now I am sure you have moved more than that and there are other editors who have moved none. But, any objective view of these numbers can come to no other conclusions than CZ's approval process is completely broken. And I think I know why.


 * By and large the editors of CZ have a certain amount of expertise, some more than others. When you look at what editors are doing, however, they are writing. They spend much of their time acting as authors. (This is not directed at you Milt, since it looks like you have been doing Herculean work and contributed significantly as both a writer and editor). What does that tell you about the editors that have been attracted to CZ? They want to write. In fact, from some of the comments I have read, most are refugees from WP who got tired of ignorant people stepping all over their work. So, my informal conclusion is experts come to CZ to write, not edit. When they become editors some feel at least a partial obligation to edit, but many don't, which is why we have so few approved articles. The bottom line to this very informal analysis is if you want to attract experts to CZ, you have to give them the opportunity to write without being bugged by those who lack their expertise or by people who are trying to game the system to gain control over their writing. Dan Nessett 16:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Very true, Dan. I regard editing as professional "paying it forward" in my fields, but also to ensure that the things I write are in a credible context. I was attracted here from WP to be able to write both with appropriate synthesis, and not having to fight constantly. I'm perfectly willing to edit, but, if I wanted to be principally an Editor, I'd do it in a different forum such as a journal or even the IETF (I've published RFCs, but I've edited a lot more).


 * If you think there were arguments here about Internet, try WP with intelligence and security issues, as well as military affairs. Ironically, here, they aren't terribly noticed in the Approval process as there are no appropriate Editors. I was able to get one article nominated by Milt because we agreed it was Military Engineering and mostly a documentation convention, but I certainly have at least high tens of articles that are stuck because there is no relevant Editor and I can't do it myself.


 * Indeed, I wish I could just get nonspecialist readers to check readability. It's one thing to get radical rewrites, and, when there was another Military editor, I found him to inject quite a bit of ideological bias. Yes, I did rewrite a number of his articles after he left, but I think most readers have felt I moved them to neutrality. I'm perfectly willing to listen to proposed revisions, but I am not willing to work with being told an article has problems -- especially one that I didn't originate -- and be given a total replacement. That isn't the practice in the IETF either, with experts generally in agreement; the mailing list discussion is very detailed, and then new drafts are written by the authors. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[Unindent] Personally I don't care much about the approval process (although I did approve a few articles and a few of mine are approved). The main disadvantage is that an approved article is locked. Even to correct a minor typo you must bother a constable. And what exactly is the advantage? I don't know whether we have outside readers, but if we do, I'm pretty sure that they don't notice the difference.--Paul Wormer 16:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The main advantage is that it can't be subject to endless and unceasing revert wars. Suppose the Homeopathy article weren't locked and we permitted people like Adam Cuerden and a couple of others I can think of to come in and fight their wars on a daily or even hourly basis. Maybe this isn't enough justification in itself, but from *some* points of view it's pretty important. Hayford Peirce 17:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The homeopathy war is bad anyway. Moreover, the approved article didn't quite boost our reputation.--Paul Wormer 17:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a very critical point in my view. Getting an article approved gives some assurance that it will not be subject to arbitrary changes. One of the major problems at WP is anyone can come in and scribble over anything they choose. This means an author has to remain eternally vigilant in regards to the articles he has written or made major contributions to. He cannot simply go on to something else. At CZ he knows that any changes made in the future will at least go through editorial review. It is that kind of guarantee that gives CZ an edge over WP (although by itself it is not probably enough to ensure CZ survives). Dan Nessett 17:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[outdent]I'll save my ideas on involving external reviewers for another discussion, though I think it might draw people in if we give them a taste of what they can expect with no (even perceived) commitment to do anything more than what we specifically ask. More pertinent to this conversation, I've been thinking off and on about submitting an open letter/op. ed. piece to student newspapers around the country and maybe throughout the English speaking world. I think they are more likely to publish such items than other news outlets and I think students might be a good source of potential authors. A couple of weeks ago, I was inspired to write a first draft of a letter that might work: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dmzwd6k_42cpx43qch --Joe Quick 19:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Joe, I'm glad you have involved yourself in this conversation. As the Approvals Manager I assume you are interested in getting more articles approved. I have an idea about that. How about setting up an Editathon (a merge between Edit and athon, which I took from an event Sun Microsystems sponsored back in the 90s called Connectathon). This would be a CZ official event that would last for some time period (1 week? 2 weeks?) with the objective of getting as many developed articles approved as possible. We could set a stretch goal of getting all articles currently in the developed state into the approved state. We probably couldn't reach that goal, but setting high goals is the mark of a community interested in excellence. Dan Nessett 19:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone have some ideas for the workgroups where there either is no active Editor, or the single Editor is also the author of developed articles? Howard C. Berkowitz 20:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

[outdent]May I share a few thoughts about the article approval process [rhetorical question mark].
 * We might think about approving articles that provide reliable information about the topic even though much more information needed to give the reader a more complete treatment of the topic. Perhaps the approval banner could include text that states the editors judge the article reliable but hope authors/editors will further develop the accompanying draft version of the article to cover more aspects of the topic and/or elaborate on those aspcts already covered.
 * In that regard, perhaps the draft versions should be evaluated on a frequent regular basis for replacement of the approved version, even if only few, but significant, improvements have been made, assuming no damage has been done.
 * We might consider changing the name of approved versions to something like "Provisionally Approved", indicating further development occuring in the draft version. Anthony.Sebastian 20:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In case anyone is interested, I just looked at the Editors list. There are 50 editors at CZ (of course, not all are active). That means on average each editor has approved slightly over 2 articles in the 3 years of CZ's existence. And that means on average editors are approving less than 1 article a year. I wrote this while Anthony was adding his comment, so it is a bit out of order. Dan Nessett 20:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you take into account the inactive ones, we have or had a total of around 400 editors, which certainly does not make the stats better. Re Editathon: We had a "Biology Week" exactly one year ago, with the meager results documented at CZ:Biology Workgroup/Biology Week Sep 22-28, 2008. "Provisionally Approved" goes into the direction of my proposal (yes, on the forums) to use a combination of Flagged Revisions and WikiTrust for approval, which has basically gone unnoticed. --Daniel Mietchen 00:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to me "editathon" will work to get articles approved only in areas where three editors overlap. We could change the approval process to allow for some sort of gang-of-editors to approve outside their workgroups but that leads us to the broken proposals system.  I agree with what Dan has written here above.  One thing that is implicit in the WP method is that the churning at WP ("experts" guarding their pages against everyone) leads to a lot of people doing a lot of editing.  I think our approval idea is what makes CZ different.  But I agree again with Dan, experts are not prone to consensus (except on really narrow issues) and expecting collaboration and agreement on big topics (homeopathy) is (I think) unrealistic and not conducive to our growth.  Russell D. Jones 02:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am trying to understand Russell's point that editathon "will work to get articles approved only in areas where three editors overlap." I thought it only took one editor to approve an article, unless that editor was also an author. Even if an editor is an author, can't he/she bow out and let another editor do the approval? Or is the problem that there really is only one active editor per workgroup? Dan Nessett 03:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm immediately aware of no other active Editor in Military, but I believe that is true of several groups. As Drew observes, Hobbies are a special case; Aleta Curry is a Specialist Editor for Dogs but there's no one to approve her articles; there's no one to do his fish articles unless a Biology editor takes it on. I don't think we have active Editors for Food (Sciences); for Visual Arts, the last active Editor did only art history, not things like pastel. Almost certainly, there are other author/editors in the same position, with no one to approve. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We haven't had an active Music Editor since 2007. Certainly there has been none willing to answer emails or do any editor workgroup duties since I started writing articles for CZ, and that was a long time ago. I've never seen anyone post to the music mailing list, and I've had to do most of the cleaning up myself. Meg Ireland 07:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] I'm reading this discussion about the importance of approval with some astonishment. Indeed, for WP the system would be a tremendous improvement&mdash;I would probably still work for them had they had it. But, CZ is not WP. I wrote a few hundred articles and only very, very, rarely has somebody changed something in one of them and in (almost) all cases it was an improvement that I also recognized as such. The great disadvantage of approval is that people will not bother to make minor changes. Probably Daniel is reading this, let me ask him a question. Yesterday you changed the title of a section in Intermolecular forces and I agree that your title is better than my old title. Would you have made the change in a draft had the article been approved? --Paul Wormer 07:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Direct reply: I agree that the barrier to make that edit in the draft is higher than to make it in the actual document, that's why I am advocating a streamlining of the approval process that keeps approved versions editable - with some properly configured Flagged Revisions system, editors of the concerned workgroups would have been allowed to change that, but if authors had done the change, it would have to be "sighted" by an editor. No unnecessary delays, and formal procedures or the Kops are only called in when editors disagree about certain edits and cannot resolve their dispute on their own. --Daniel Mietchen 11:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"Why has CZ lost so many authors?" Brief answer from one of them: because there aren't enough editors, as some people have already suggested above (but I'm answering as an insider).

Detailed answer. I withdrew from direct participation in Wikipedia (restricting myself to commnting from the sidelines) when I discovered it had no effective procedure for enforcing neutrality. Administrators and arbitrators aren't authorized to enforce it, and the community often, or usually, chooses not to. That leaves articles to war/politics/haggling among various factions (I'm talking about controversial articles on religion, politics etc.; straightforward scientific factual matters should work). The end result to be expected from this process is that points of view will be represented in proportion to their prominence among editors of the article concerned, rather than among reliable sources.

So what do I find when I come here? Editors are supposed to deal with that sort of problem. Fine where there is one. But often there isn't. Back in December (just 2 months after coming here from Wikipedia) I posted a request for editor assistance to solve just such a problem on the personal talk pages of all 15 editors in the workgroup. Not a single response, then or since.

In summary, the CZ system should work in areas where an editor is available, but elsewhere it's as bad as Wikipedia, so people who've left there for here are liable to end up leaving for the same reason.

So I hope you get more editors. My main interest is in Buddhism. If you get one authorized and willing to exercise editorial authority there then I can do some work here. Meanwhile I'm working at Wikinfo, where they have a completely different way of dealing with such problems: POV forking with hatlinks. Peter Jackson 11:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it certainly seems that getting editors (or actually not getting them) is a fundamental problem that needs to be solved. The title of this section is "Why has CZ lost so many authors?" At least preliminarily, its because there is no one who wants to do the editing. So, again preliminarily, if we get more editors, we can get more authors.


 * Of course, that just replaces one question with another. How do we get more editors? When I was in research, editing was never something anyone wanted to do. However, it was expected that you would do a certain amount in order to remain a respected member of your profession. Generally, getting yourself on a program committee was something that enhanced your reputation. The main responsibility of someone on a program committee is reading paper submissions and writing a review. But, there is nothing similar to this tradition in the open source writing community. So, we need to think of other ways to create a similar "sense of responsibility". I think that requires some reward, even if indirect, for editing. One possibility is to more prominently display editors names when a reader comes to CZ. We could put them at the top of the Welcome page. Another is when an article is approved, we could affix the names of the editors responsible to the top of the article. Any other suggestions? Dan Nessett 14:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for posting twice in a row, but I think we need to address Paul's question. It was my understanding that when an article is approved, the next draft is started and people can edit it freely. The approved article is the one that the public sees, but any CZ citizen has access to both the approved version and the draft. Is this the way things work? For routine grammar and typo problems, I think an editor should be able to rule that a change is non-substantive and allow the approved version to change.


 * If this is the procedure, then Daniel's suggestion has merit. The Flagged Revision system allows a version to be frozen and presented as approved. Work continues on the document, but that work is on the next revision. Dan Nessett 14:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is the procedure. In terms of rewarding editors, a relatively minor change we could put into effect quickly would be to use names to link to the approving editors in the template at the top of approved pages instead of simply stating how many there are.  The links already point to the editors' user pages, they just don't show the editors' names.  See Grand Trunk Railway, for example. --Joe Quick 15:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Great idea, Joe. This is a quick fix that I think significantly improves things. Whose approval do we need to make the change? Dan Nessett 15:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Peter. You make a good point: there are a substantial number of inactive editors, and, I'm not especially thinking of those that were active for a time and then had time or policy conflicts.


 * No, I'm thinking of the basic criteria for Editor status: credentials on Day 1. Given the number of Editors that never made an actual Edit to other than their user page, what is wrong with this picture? Also, we have a few horrible examples of a credentialed editor who immediately created havoc, such as Martin Cohen; not the only such.


 * Conversely, we have people that are productive authors and lower-case editors, but have not met the criteria of the credentialing people. Speaking personally, I find it frustrating that I've worked in several substantive areas where I am not academically credentialed, but have substantial real-world experience, and, most importantly, a body of work here that can be judged.


 * To break some of the Approval logjam, I'd propose, perhaps with some sort of Interim status, finding a way to agree that certain people do know what they are doing in various areas, based on their base of work here. Perhaps they could Approve (to be defined) noncontroversial articles.


 * Food articles are an excellent example. Does one really need a home economics or nutrition degree to approve bread, understanding that it can always be improved? Yes, barbecue would be both Religion and Controversial. I'm a pretty good baker and am confident Hayford knows how to be kneaded.


 * Top-level articles might well be judged by a consensus of experienced Citizens for readability and reasonability. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Following up on Howard's suggestion &mdash; why not define editor status for an article once it is nearing approval? As far as I can tell, Flagged Revisions can be set up on an article-by-article basis, though I do not know whether the right to "sight" can currently be handled on a user-by-user basis for individual articles (if not, that would be a case where a CZ variant of a MediaWiki extension would make sense). Even in the current system, it would be easy to signal one's willingness to act as an editor by simply posting it to the talk page or perhaps a new section of the metadata. Ideally, though, I would like to see this coupled with a karma system as in WikiTrust, such that previous activities in articles related to the one in question can be weighted stronger than previous activities in articles not related to it. --Daniel Mietchen 21:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On the American Association of Retired Persons again: "The AARP Bulletin’s What I Really Know column comes from our readers. Each month we solicit personal essays on a selected topic and post some of our favorites in print and online." Perhaps we can keep an eye on this column and possibly even brush up our respective articles a bit (or enrich them with some signed articles), such that we would have something to be posted to the bulletin? The "October theme" is television, and submissions are probably due by October 1. --Daniel Mietchen 21:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[unindent]

I think we need to add some other criteria for being an editor. For example, Peter mentions the following. "Back in December (just 2 months after coming here from Wikipedia) I posted a request for editor assistance to solve just such a problem on the personal talk pages of all 15 editors in the workgroup. Not a single response, then or since." This suggests, at least in Peter's case, that editors are not editing. We seem to have concentrated on editor credentials (either formal or informal) and have completely missed editor performance. I don't think being an editor should be an honorary position. It should come with some minimum performance requirements. For example, if an editor doesn't approve, say, 5 articles in any 12 month period or if he/she constantly fails to respond to author requests for help, then the editorship should be withdrawn. Also, I think we should avoid granting editorship to someone in more than say 2 or 3 workgroups. They may have the qualifications for more, but I question whether they have the time to do a good job in more than 2 or 3 areas. In addition, granting editorship in more than 2 or 3 workgroups risks granting one person too much overall authority.

Also, while I think Peter's input is very valuable, we need to find out from some other authors why they left. There may be other reasons authors have left and we need to fix these as well. Dan Nessett 22:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I only responded here because I happened to check the recent changes list at the right time. That is, it's sheer luck you got even 1 response. If you want useful information you'll have to email everyone.


 * A point that might be relevant in some way. I got the impression that which editors have what authority ovr which articles is pretty much a state secret. Peter Jackson 10:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Peter, your comment of "I got the impression that which editors have what authority over which articles is pretty much a state secret", surprises me. I don't understand how you got that impression. Everyone's user page (author and/or editor) very clearly delineates the workgroups in which each of us is an author or an editor (see bottom line of each user page). I don't see how that can be thought of as a "state secret".


 * As for the role of an editor and his/her authority, that is openly available in CZ:Editor Policy and CZ:The Editor Role ... so where is the secret?


 * I have been an author and an editor since January, 2008 and, other than nominating articles for approval, I can only recall perhaps 1 or 2 occasions where I exercised my authority as an editor in editing or commenting about an article. Milton Beychok 15:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Pursuing the problems that you had getting editor help, Peter, what kind of assistance did you request? Did you ask an editor for help with some technical issue? Did you ask for their help with a procedural issue. Did you ask for some other kind of help?


 * In response to your comment Milt, I think it is unreasonable to expect citizens to know about policy documents that do not concern them. An author probably doesn't look around for documents about editors because his/her interest is writing, not editing. I think it is unrealistic for us to expect authors to read the many different definitional documents that exist at CZ, especially those that are on topics that do not interest him/her. This is suppose to be a fun place to work, not a training exercise for lawyers.


 * Finally, I think we should take Peter's advice and ask some other authors who are no longer active why they left. Dan Nessett 16:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(undent) May I suggest this would be more appropriate, and seen by more people, on the Forum?

A few comments though: as to number of workgroups per Editor, if, variously, a workgroup isn't being covered for Approval, either because there are no Editors (e.g., Food), one Editor who is a substantial author (e.g., Military), or Editors that won't work on certain topics (e.g., Visual Arts, with Editors that did Art History, but not technique--might not be active).

The power of an Editor can always be reevaluated, and there might be reductions in scope if we get more Editors -- but if the lack of approving, or even commenting, Editors is a bottleneck, what is most important? I suggest the critical elements are the things that limit growth. As far as power, we've been operating under a situation where the E-I-C really has the only official power, although, recently, some Constables and Editors have filled vacuums. (deferring, of course, to Milt about vacuum pumps). Howard C. Berkowitz 19:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not entirely a lack of Editors -- it's a lack of *active* Editors. There are *frequent* new Editors joining the project. Then they entirely vanish.  They don't make a single contribution, ever.  Not one.  Why do they bother to join and then not do a flippin' thing?  That, to me, is a more noteworthy question.  I could run through the Approvals Log for the last couple of months and probably tell you that maybe 14 new Editors joined -- and that maybe only *one* of them has contributed anything.  This is a question that I've already brought up a couple of times in various Forum discussions and there's never been a satisfactory answer, just, "Well, that's the way it is on wikis." Great.  Why bother.... Hayford Peirce 19:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, Matt!! Please move this to the forums ... it looks as if it will go on forever. Milton Beychok 19:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Only speculation here, but I wonder if the situation would be helped if one had to be an author, and produce/collaborate on content, before being considered as an Editor. Learn how to CZ edit before trying to CZ Edit. It was very promising when we were joined by a Visual Arts Editor, but that person neither was willing to listen to pure style guidance on the person's own articles in Art History, but was not willing, when asked, to Edit (or even Approve in early form) some core technique articles, such as charcoal (art) or pastel. What's wrong with this picture? Would it help had the person been designated a Specialist Editor in Art History? I tend to believe one has to earn Editorship; there can be case-by-case decisions to start someone if they are known contributors to other electronic collaborative fora (not necessarily Wikis). Howard C. Berkowitz 19:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I just tried to do a cut and paste into a new Forum thread but got a red message saying that it had two many characters. (And I don't mean the contributors, hehe.) So why don't you try it yourselves, maybe some other way? Hayford Peirce 20:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I remember that particular Art Editor and I still grit my teeth at the thought. She was everything that an Editor should NOT be. Hayford Peirce 20:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm wary of placing more requirements on people in order to become editors. I just don't see the logic in how restricting the number of people who are allowed to be editors will result in more people being editors. --Joe Quick 20:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hayford makes a good point. In fact, it is a point left unaddressed by some of the proposals presented here to solve the problem. We do not have a problem recruiting editors or authors. We have a problem retaining them. You first have to solve the second problem and then the first one. If you try to solve the first problem before solving the second one, you are trying to fill a bathtub with a big hole in the bottom. So, here is the flow of analysis as I see it. We can't retain authors. Why? The editors are not doing their job. Why? Because we can't retain editors. Why? That is were things get controversial. So, I will simply say that we need to address the editor retention problem and then work our way backwards toward the author retention problem.


 * However, I will state again that we need to ask some other authors who have left why they did that. Right now our analysis is driven from a sample of one (for which I heartily thank Peter Jackson for taking the time to supply). Dan Nessett 20:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone is using the wrong words here: it is not a question of "retaining" Editors -- it is a question of them *doing anything.* Very, very of them have ever really *left*. Some, but few. They just don't contribute. Hayford Peirce 20:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Editor Forum start: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2898.0.html Howard C. Berkowitz 20:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks all (and Howard for moving this) All very interesting, I'll make one comment on the forum. D. Matt Innis 21:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * He hasn't *moved* it, Matt, just started a thread with a *link* to this discussion. So don't delete this.... Hayford Peirce 21:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Peter. If you have come here and wondered what has happened, the discussion has moved to a forum (given above). I have asked a question of you in that forum that I hope you decide to answer. Dan Nessett 21:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to bulk mail all editors, including inactive ones and all citizens, including those who have left?
Hi Matt,

In order to get some input from authors and editors who have left CZ, it would be really useful to email them and ask. Is there any way for constables to bulk mail all editors or all citizens (I assume this is not something that CZ would want non-privileged citizens to do). Dan Nessett 01:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, your right in noting that this is not something that we want to abuse. There are several lists that essentially would get in touch with everyone who still uses their same email address. D. Matt Innis 02:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We need to proceed with caution on bulk emails, but I think getting feedback from those who have left us is critical to fixing the retention problem. How would you suggest we proceed on this idea. Should I bring it up in the editorial retention thread? Dan Nessett 02:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's proabably as good a place to start as any. D. Matt Innis 02:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)