User talk:Daniel Mietchen

=Notes to self= here

=Talk space=

Possible bug?
Daniel, would you be able to take a look at this page here:. I don't know if its my browser or not but the defintions don't appear to be sorting alphabetically. They are all grouped under '0'. Meg Ireland 02:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Except for three that lack the subpages template which adds the category (and probably also the 0 somehow, though I could not yet figure out how). And within the "0" subcategory, they do not follow the alphabet either, hmmm... Anyway, standardizing disambiguations is certainly something for the wishlist. --Daniel Mietchen 11:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

a new member
We have a new member (User:Karsten_Borgmann), who is apparently editor of a German wiki connected to Humboldt-University Berlin: http://www.docupedia.de/ I don't read German, but I'm wondering if it is a project we'd like to partner with in some capacity. Could you look the site over and see what it's about? Thanks much. --Joe Quick 20:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do. --Daniel Mietchen 20:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do my website's 4000 visitors per week include visitors only from the CZ forums and none from CZ wiki?
Daniel, I have had my own domain website for over 12 years now. It consistently gets about 4000 visitors a week, including about 150 per week from http://forum/citizendium.org ... but not a single one from http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/(any of the 100+ articles I've written).

It makes me ask how many people actually read any of our articles? Is there any way to find that info? Milton Beychok 04:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No idea. I just went there from your user page. Can you see that? --Daniel Mietchen 10:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will be able to see that, but it will be next Sunday. My log report is a weekly one received each Sunday. Does CZ have any such log reports that tell us how many visitors we've had? Milton Beychok 15:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Please look at this forum thread
Daniel, this thread might be worth bringing to the attention of the charter drafting committee. See here Milton Beychok 02:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

CZ:Buglist examples
Hi Daniel. I noticed you changed the Image references in CZ:Buglist example1 and example2 to mediawiki links. The reason I presented them as http links is when a user uses cz-bugs (which is an email list), the mediawiki link syntax doesn't work. Since these are examples of how to report a bug or enhancement request using email, I think we should leave them as http links. However, I am open to arguments against this if you have some. Dan Nessett 21:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, fixed. --Daniel Mietchen 21:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

German
Daniel, I translated a small piece by Clausius from German into English, could you please check it? See entropy (thermodynamics). As you know neither language is my mother language. --Paul Wormer 13:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I put my version directly on the image page but think the article may merit a shorter version. --Daniel Mietchen 18:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I had some doubts myself about the length of the inset. On the other hand, I have seen so many mistakes in the quotation and also because Clausius thought of the name Verwandlungsinhalt, that I thought it would be interesting to have it. Maybe just the translation is sufficient and a good compromise?--Paul Wormer 07:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be a possibility but I am generally in favour of showing excerpts from original sources, and Verwandlungsinhalt is certainly instructive. So I pasted the whole translation in for the time being. Let's take another look at this after a while, or ask others, and decide then. --Daniel Mietchen 08:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

German
Daniel, do you agree with this translation: M. Planck, Über irreversible Strahlungsvorgänge [On irreversible radiation events], Annalen der Physik, vol. 1, pp. 69–122 (1900)? --Paul Wormer 13:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would go for "On irreversible radiation processes". --Daniel Mietchen 14:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You may link to the original source. Peter Schmitt 17:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I had a link to a scanned version in the Ann. d. Physik, but it was the wrong paper of Planck, so I changed it. Question: the two links give different spellings Über and Ueber, is there a historical difference?--Paul Wormer 17:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Both spellings were equally valid in his time, though now Über would prevail (at least as long as the umlaut is available to the typist). --Daniel Mietchen 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In particular, "Ue" is sometimes used for the uppercase umlaut. In any case, I prefer using the spelling of the original source. Peter Schmitt 00:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Trials
I removed it for now. As to being back, I hope. Still very busy but I want to contribute here more. Chris Day 12:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

About Fahrenheit and Rankine temperatures
Daniel, I note that you revised Fahrenheit and Rankine temperatures so as to move the section about conversions and comparisons to a catalog subpage of the Temperature article. I certainly agree that those two sections make a good subpage for the Temperature article. However, they were really some of the core content of the Fahrenheit and Rankine temperatures article and I think they should also remain in that article. After all, there is no harm in having that content in both places, is there? Accordingly, I am going to reinstate a copy of that content in the Fahrenheit and Rankine temperatures article. I hope that you have no objection to having it in both places.

Also, in a brief scan of the Temperature article, I saw no place where readers are told that information about conversions was available in the catalog subpage ... and many newcomers to CZ probably will not think to look at the catalog subpage. Perhaps, you should add a sentence somewhere in the Temperature article pointing to the conversions in the catalog subpage ... or perhaps it would even better to change the subpage from "Catalog" to "Temperature conversions". What do you think? Milton Beychok 22:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was hoping for feedback on this, since I think it is core content but currently not very consistently organized. So thanks for being so quick! My preference would be to have a separate article for each unit (i.e. also separate F & R), to have the conversions all in one place, possibly even a separate article (I set up several redirects). A subpage ""Temperature conversion", i.e. with a non-standard name would not be allowed by current rules and also cause the subpages template to choke. Of course, there should then be links to it from everywhere relevant (I started with that for several of the articles but was not done yet when I saw your comment). --Daniel Mietchen 22:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have split the Fahrenheit and Rankine temperatures article and moved the Catalog page to Temperature conversion. --Daniel Mietchen 23:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

redirects
Daniel, it is not necessary to redirect uppercase/lowercase versions: Go and Search find both. (And in links, the "correct" link is preferable.) Peter Schmitt 16:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Partial correction: As it seems, this is true only for titles with at most 3 words. Curiosu. Peter Schmitt 17:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking. --Daniel Mietchen 21:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Element subpages
On a related note to the bot deleting all the elemental subpages we have to recall that the Template:Elem_Infobox uses that information. We can easily reconfigure this template and possibly transfer the information to another location (may be to the metadata) where it can be called on by templates such as this. Looking at the calcium one you can see how much information is being drawn from the elemental subpages. Chris Day 21:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the template but it suffers from not being used much, basically because most element articles remain yet to be written.My preferred location for this kind of information would be a Data namespace, e.g. Data:Calcium/Atomic number. --Daniel Mietchen 21:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can definitely see the advantage of a data namespace. This would be very useful for geography too. There is no reason why everything has to be on a different page though.  We could easily set up a switch, similar to the format used with the metadata, and have everything related to calcium in one place. Or everything related to the UK in one place. Chris Day 21:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, a single page with switches would be a good alternative, another one being properties and types in Semantic MediaWiki, if we were going to install that. --Daniel Mietchen 21:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I had not heard of properties or types. Maybe I am dense but after reading that article I am still unsure as to how such information can be called on by other articles?  For example, if The Berlin article tags it as the Capital of Germany, i.e. capital of::Germany, how would we be able to use this information in another article? For example, could we write something along the lines of:
 * Get::(capital of::Germany) has a population of Get::([[Get::(capital of::Germany) population) ]].


 * Obviously the mark up used here is hypothetical. Chris Day 21:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not exactly sure about your Get functionality but Has capital::Berlin, if placed in the Germany article, would create the semantic association "Germany" "Has capital" "Berlin", and a page Property:Capital could then automatically be populated (similar to categories), such that it lists Berlin as the capital of Germany, along with all other capitals of country articles that have been semantically tagged this way. --Daniel Mietchen 22:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) These subpages have previously been discussed with Milton: here and here, and in this forum thread. Peter Schmitt 22:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Daniel,

A dialog you say?:-) Could you help me out with a link?  I didn't see anything here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Lithium here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ_Talk:Chemistry_Workgroup or here: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/board,32.0.html.  Where should I look?...--David Yamakuchi 00:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! now I see it!--David Yamakuchi 00:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I recall where this "discussion" left off:
 * It seems to me I was in on _this_ one last here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Yamakuchi#Periodic_tables


 * And then again here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Yamakuchi#.22Ethyl.22_Anecdotes


 * So, let me see if I can sum up for you...succinctly...The reason the Isotopes template was left "broken" on the Lithium/Isotopes page was that it was the only known example of what seemed to be a bug in the template rendering logic on CZ. The "test" _breaks_ when you substitute the template into the page as Caesar did. I wasn't actually continuing that work, just re-creating the only references to the debugging example...as I thought was clear here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Lithium.


 * BTW, it looks like we have had a similar erroneous deleting incident in the Plutonium subpages as well. Isn't it's a sad state of affairs when we need to spend our time removing the Plutonium rather than adding to the Platinum :-) Eh?--David Yamakuchi 02:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daniel,

Just thought I'd post this:

http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,3054.0.html

here for you in case you were willing to relocate our discussion over there...--David Yamakuchi 01:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Request
Hello, Daniel. Could you edit my user page again, please. I don't know how to turn the pink bits blue & get the little boxes that you made before. Cheers - Ro Thorpe 01:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. No boxes for subsubpages like Catalogs, no blue without metadata. --Daniel Mietchen 09:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, thanks - Ro Thorpe 12:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

translation
Daniel what do you think of my translation:

Ersetzung der Hypothese vom unmechanischen Zwang durch eine Forderung bezüglich des inneren Verhaltens jedes einzelnen Elektrons [Replacement of the hypothesis of non-mechanical constraint by a requirement regarding the internal behavior of every single electron] ? --Paul Wormer 15:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dit past goed, maar force in plaats van constraint zou nog beter zijn. --Daniel Mietchen 16:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

potential Dutch member
Hi, Daniel,

Sorry about confusing the NL and Belgium -- I was drinking my morning coffee! Now there's a prof at a NL university named Paul de Laat who has emailed saying that his *two* applications have never been attended to. As far as *I* can tell, we never received an application. Do you know anything about him? Thanks! Hayford Peirce 16:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but I see the problem is already solved. --Daniel Mietchen 22:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Aha! So it was Daniel...
... who should get the hug and kiss for archiving the WaT page! Thanks!! Aleta Curry 21:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not eligible for the thanks this time, but I guess Peter is. --Daniel Mietchen 22:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

CZ:Bot status
Daniel, I saw that you weren't happy with that table either, so I was trying some stuff. However, I'm stuck trying to get the text to align left on the template Template:BotReq2. What am I missing? I'm still not totally finished and would appreciate any changes you feel are improvements! D. Matt Innis 18:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I took another look but the changes I have in mind would take too much time right now. Will have another look later. --Daniel Mietchen 21:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'll keep playing, too. I enjoy the tediousness of it all :) D. Matt Innis 21:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Feedback page
Daniel, I do not want to interfere with the drafting committee. But this will not work:
 * "Please do not change the phrasing of the Charter text herein — if something has been changed in the draft itself, please strike out the phrasing here and add the new one below."

because a change may change acceptance or disproval. When a change is made, comments have to be removed, too, I think. --Peter Schmitt 22:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Right. Changed. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 22:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Friedrich-Wilhelm(s) Universität
Daniel, I see sometimes Friedrich-Wilhelm and sometimes Friedrich-Wilhelms (see ) for the name of the Berlin University before the war (now Humboldt). (I don't mean the university in Bonn). Is this a genitive and is the "s" arbitrary, or is this a mistake?--Paul Wormer 09:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is "Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität" (from 1828)-- see the official site: HU-Berlin. Therefore it is the genitive. --Peter Schmitt 10:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Peter. --Daniel Mietchen 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

bots
Daniel, we need to put the link to the Feedback page in the edit summary of all bot edits. D. Matt Innis 20:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Will often require some shorthands which redirect there, though &mdash; edit summaries have a character limit. --Daniel Mietchen 21:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping
Not sure how closely you're watching my talk page, just wanted to alert you that I replied over there. -Pete Forsyth 00:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks but it's on my watchlist. --Daniel Mietchen 11:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Web archive
Daniel, I saw that the external link subpage contains the advise to use "web archive". I tried that and see that an e-mail address is requested. Do I use my own or Citizendium's? --Paul Wormer 14:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your own - it won't be displayed. They just use it to send you the link once they're done processing the info you submitted. --Daniel Mietchen 14:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Daniel. Thanks for sorting out the Liverpool move. I think I understand where I went wrong. All the best. --John Leach 14:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --Daniel Mietchen 20:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Would like to have your comments
After discussion on the Talk page of Water, I entered the Freezing point of water as "Not measurable" in response to the comments made by you and Paul Wormer. David Yamakuchi's subpage transclusion has now revised it to " 0 °C* " ... which has me at a loss. Please visit the Water Talk page and offer your comments. I really don't know what to do about this. Milton Beychok 05:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why but Peter changed it back to 0˚C. I just reverted it back to the last version that mentioned it is not measureable. Chris Day 06:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No time right now, but this paper may be worth a look for details. Will get back later. --Daniel Mietchen 07:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not know how this happened. I thought I only corrected some typos. (Template influence?) --Peter Schmitt 12:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)