User talk:Hayford Peirce

Mysterious speedydelete on JFK/Related Articles
No, I didn't put a speedydelete on JFK/Related, but here's what probably happened. I noticed that the former "List of US Presidents" had been moved into the Catalogs subpage of the President article; but the Definition subpage of "List..." still existed. Since it had no "main article" to belong to, I thought it should be speedydeleted, so I put the template on the Definition subpage. But then, when editing "JFK/Related," I noticed that that page links to "List of US Presidents" (which is now a redirect to "Pres./Catalog", and uses the {r} template, so it tries to display the defintion -- which, now, included a speedydelete template (which showed up in the middle of JFK/Related). This isn't very pretty, so I removed the template from "List/Definition". But apparently the fact that the "speedydelete" showed up briefly on "JFK/Related" somehow got it listed on the speedydelete list.

Whew. Got all that? Bruce M.Tindall 20:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Double whew. I'll ask Chris to take a look at it. Hayford Peirce 20:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Was Oswald deleting alone? Is there reason to suspect the Lucien Conein article? Howard C. Berkowitz 21:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is what happened. Bruce added the speedydelete template to the list of presidents definition subpage. He then made the following edit that caused the deletion template to appear, along with the deifintion, on the related articles page. A consequence of this was that the speedy delete category was also added.

Then Bruce removed the template from the definition but the Related Articles page is still seen in the deletion category because the page needs to receive a minor edit to reassign the correct categories, even though the template has gone. The page will not be lost from the category until an edit has been made. I just made an edit on the page so it should have disappeared now. This is a royal pain but there seems to be no easy fix right now. But I'm working on it.

In short, anytime you see a page without a deletion template on it appear in the deletion category, it must have had one on at some point in time. A minor edit will usually get rid of it from the deleteion category. Chris Day 21:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I follow how to *fix* it, although not necessarily what caused it. In the meantime, though, now that's a Speedy Delete template on Research, which I see you just edited, but there's no reason given for the requested delete.... Hayford Peirce 21:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Placed there by Richard Jensen, no reason given. Since we're at it, here is a demonstration of how the JFK/Related Articles subpage got into the speedydelete category. If i transclude the content of Research to your talk page here by typing  :


 * Then you will notice the speedydelete tag appears here along with the subpages template, and places your talk page into the speedydelete category, but the speedydelete template was never physically added to your page. Does that make sense? This is also why the subpages template has to be between noinclude tags on the defintion page, otherwise the R template would place the sugpages template on the related articles page for every R template used. Chris Day 21:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I see what you did, and how you did it, and I'll take yer word for *why* it works as it does. I've just removed the  thingee you put here, and now, I think, all should be back to normal. Hayford Peirce 22:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, I think you're getting the hang of it ;) Chris Day 22:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have him repeat the Basque separatist tactical doctrine, moving out of the mountains: "the reign in Spain falls mainly in the plains." Howard C. Berkowitz 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

editor
Susan Reverby didn't apply to be an editor? Chris Day 19:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Geez! Maybe she did! I *thought* it was author!  Oh my, lemme go see.... Hayford Peirce 19:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Literature editors
We only "have" 4 such editors, (see http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Literature_Editors ) and all appear to be inactive.

David E. Volk 15:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, *none* of them have ever been active. I think Russell Potter (?) was the only Lit. Ed. who ever did *anything*! Groan. 16:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And he resigned in protest, although seemed to indicate that he might be open to contact if there were some changes in policy. His rather extensive Forum discussions did not characterize him as someone who simply registered and did nothing. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, no, he was quite active for a while. And seemed to be a nice guy into the bargain.  I really don't know why he left -- something about the role of experts, I imagine.... Hayford Peirce 17:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't recall his reason for leaving but he did a lot of good work. He writes at googles knol now. Chris Day 17:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

remember the mysterious deletes?
I finally realised what the problem was, see this edit. Any category [placed on the talk page will be seen in the category list with the article name only. Chris Day 07:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I wonder why we didn't see that before! Just not looking in the right place, I guess.  Glad to know what the mystery problem was! Hayford Peirce 15:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Another favor, please
Hayford, I would also like to hear your opinion of Conventional coal-fired power plant. You can respond here or on my user Talk page or on the article's Talk page. Thanks in advance, Milton Beychok 07:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks very good to me, with a nice, clear, understandable opening. I used to argue with some people (all of whom have left the project, I believe) that *all* articles ought to have at least a single understandable lede sentence or even a paragraph, even for the most recondite subjects.  Couldn't convince 'em.  Well, they're gone.... Cheers! Hayford Peirce 15:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course Milt's openings are great, but you shouldn't forget the difference in abstraction between an electricity plant and a Dowker space. --Paul Wormer 15:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is that like a Docking station? Or a kind of shoe for wearing on yachts? Hayford Peirce 16:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, where else would you dock a yacht? (well, you could moor it rather than dock it; I've learned sailorspeak) Seriously, I don't think all articles can have openings that are accessible to all, but such articles should keep going upward with or  until they are.


 * That, however, requires a top-down wiki approach, which I prefer but many do not. Strong linking, even through related articles pages, will help.Howard C. Berkowitz 16:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * When I say that the lede should be accessible, or understandable, I'm simply saying that the opening sentence should read: "Wigglestine's framus is a mathematical construct that is useful for biogeologists as they evaluate the relative axial positions of the yoni as compared to the lingam." RATHER than having a lede that is: "Wigglestine's framus is X times Q3 to the 7th power, squared and then stirred with an eye of newt." That's all -- just something that tells the general reader *where*, or maybe *why* this thing mentioned in the article is noticeable enough to have any article about it. Hayford Peirce 16:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hah! Try getting some coherent discussions of yoni and lingam perspective consistent from an XX and XY perspective! Howard C. Berkowitz 17:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Scientific status
Hi Hayford. At Talk:Pseudoscience you mentioned the lack of scientific status as an attribute of pseudoscience. I wonder if I understood you properly. Are you saying that an theory which isn't supported by the evidence or otherwise isn't in accord with the scientific method will normally not be accorded scientific status? Or that the mere lack of scientific status is sufficient to label a theory as pseudoscience? --Ed Poor 14:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ed, you must have me confused with someone else. All I did at the Pseudo. article was remove a redundant phrase that said exactly the same thing as the first part of the sentence.  And, just out of curiosity, I looked at the WP site and put their opening into the Talk section. I think that their opening is better than ours. But that's just my own personal opinion. Hayford Peirce 15:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for talk page and welcome
As much as test for me to see how this compares to (you know who's) editing, but I did want to also thank you for creating my talk page and leaving the welcome message. It may take me a short time to get up to speed, but I'll primarily be reading through rules and norms before I actually start editing.

Again, thank you for the welcome, Ched Davis 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Re new user, Hugh Ching, writing an autobiographical article about himself as his first article on his first day in CZ
Hayford, since when are new users allowed to write an autobiographical article about themselves as their first article on their first day as a Citizen? Surely, one must question his motive for joining CZ?? Milton Beychok 05:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, all Constables can do is to approve or reject new candidates. Having approved them, based on their bios submitted, we can't know in advance what they are going to write. As you may have seen, I have already moved the content of his article to the Talk page, pending further action. Hayford Peirce 05:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Martini
I just stumbled upon ... hmm, maybe that's not the best way to say that ... I just found your Martini article. I had always just assumed that the name was derived from the "Martini & Rossi" brand of vermouth, but didn't see that mentioned as a possible etymology. According to The Other Place, "Martini" has been in the firm's often-changing name since 1863. Is there any evidence as to a possible connection between the brand and the drink recipe? Bruce M.Tindall 00:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That has certainly been posited over the years, but most of the stuff I've read about it pretty much pooh-poohs the notion as being coincidental. But who really knows? All of the explanations are rather lame. I just bought a bottle of Hendrick's Gin, which is now the veddy In one, and will give it a go tomorrow night, along with some Rossiere vermouth. Will see how it stacks up against Plymouth. It's 44 proof, as opposed to 41.5 for the Plymouth, and 40 for Gordons and the bulk of the others, so maybe it will give *me* the staggers also.  Cheers! Hayford Peirce 01:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There are, I suppose, the demented grammarians that believe a single serving should be a Martinus. It is their ilk that will dress an especially thin ballerina in a tu.


 * Personally, I've never really liked Martinis; I prefer single malts, cognacs and things with a more distinctive taste. When a "perfect Martini" is described as almost not there, why bother? There is, however, the advertising CEO that forbade the account execs from drinking vodka at lunch; he wanted the clients to know they were drunk, not stupid. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I missed this. Martinis drink of choice here, but, sadly, I'm subject to Dorothy Parkeritis.  Preferred Gordons when drinking gin martinis, but was most partial to vodka gibsons, also never got into mixing premium vodkas (except grey goose).  Kettel One is always preferred on the rocks.  Interested to hear how the taste test went, Hayford.  Jones 12:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Re the "perfect Martini," I seem to recall reading somewhere that there is/was a drink named "Perfect Martini" that contains twice as much vermouth as gin. And it's sweet vermouth.  Or something like that.  Ever encountered that?  Bruce M.Tindall 17:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Old* martinis were originally about 1/1, along with some other stuff in them, maybe. Then 2/1 was "dry", then 3/1, and so forth. I'm making mine at 5/1, which is classic "dry", but only for geezers. Today "dry" is practically none at all.  TASTING: I have a big bottle of Gordon's in the freezer, plus a bottle of Plymouth and alternate them. Plymouth is superior, but more expensive. I used Noilly Prat for a while for the vermouth, then discovered Rossiere, which is definitely superior.  A 5/1 Plymouth/Rossiere using gin from the freezer is the best one I've tasted. I made one Plymouth, one Hendrick's side by side and compared them: Hendrick's seemed to have a sharper taste, definitely less good.  However, last night I made two Hendrick's and found them quite acceptable, although somewhat more "floral" than my memory of the Plymouth. I'll probably use up the Hendrick's and never buy it again -- it's more expensive than Plymouth, and Plymouth is pretty expensive (although a Total Wine store was selling it for $14 a couple of months ago -- I bought up their entire stock of 9 bottles.) I think I've only ordered martinis in bars twice in my life: I had an excellent one the other night that was 5/1, no olive or onion or twist, made with Hendrick's and Cinzano Extra Dry (white) Vermouth, not the Cinzano Bianco vermouth. Six ounces! Hayford Peirce 18:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. Yes, we're a lot drier these days.  I used to make mine by bathing the ice cubes in vermouth and then pouring out all of the vermouth.  Yes, that's a dry martini.  Jones 21:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, that's wetter than whispering "Vermouth!" over the glass as Winston Churchill or various other people have been said to do. By the way, what are you doing so that only "Jones" shows up as your signature? Or is this a bug somewhere in the system? Hayford Peirce 21:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hayford,

Three tildes gives: (Chris Day)

Four tildes ( ~ ) gives: (Chris Day 21:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

Five tildes gives: (21:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

So Chris will give: Chris 21:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (If anybody asks, I was never here.) I thought Winston's method was simply to have a bottle of Vermouth on the tray with the gin.  But I have heard of the whispering method, too.  Both, I'm sure, render a quality product provided it's good gin.  This reminds me of when I first visited Prague.  First day of wandering around bars I wondered why there was never, ever, any vodka on the shelves.  Then I figured it out: Iron Curtain country ==> familiarity with Russian drinking culture ==> the vodka was always kept in the freezer.  In the US, vodka is kept on the shelves.  Russell D. Jones 21:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I keep *my* vodka on the shelves, because I never use it (although I did put some in a pie crust dough the other day, thereby improving it). But the friends of mine who drink "vodka martinis" (horrid thought!) all keep their vodka in the freezer. Hayford Peirce 21:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * well, yes, the whole kit & kaboodle should always be kept in the freezer (except the vermouth). The whole drink is about the chill.  Russell D. Jones 22:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not the shaker, the measuring cup, and strainer, however -- too much coldness almost freezes the drink and when I pour it I'm missing a significant amount. So now I only chill the gin AND THE GLASSES, then use 4 ice cubes to shake the 8 ounces of booze before pouring into the 2 glasses. Hayford Peirce 22:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

New literature Editor!
Did you see? User:Wendy_Galgan Maybe you could walk her through the paces for approving an article or two... --Joe Quick 03:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip -- I read her application but didn't pay much attention to it since I can't make decisions. See my comment to her on her discussion page. Hayford Peirce 03:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Larteguy and torture
In working on the torture article, I was interested to find that Darius Rejali, in his 2007 major work on the subject, spends several pages (545-548; it is on Google/Amazon) discussing Larteguy. He mentions it is used as a thought experiment in discussions of whether torture can be ethical, and the motivations for it. So far, I've been restrained in discussing ethics &mdash; motivation, yes. Do you think this sort of thing belongs in an article, or perhaps a whole different article? Howard C. Berkowitz 04:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Along a similar theme there were the animal experiments by Harry Harlow, specifically his Pit of Despair. Not sure it really fits in here but certainly a psychiatric angle might be worth an article. Chris Day 04:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've put in a brief piece on Philip Zimbardo and the Stanford Prison Experiments; I'll get around to Stanley Milgram and the experiments on obedience. There's some peripheral mention of those in thought reform; I'm also working on a higher-level, U.S.-specific article, likely to split: User: Howard C. Berkowitz/Interrogation. These all are approaches to my concerns about bottom-up writing about prisoners, Guantanamo, etc.


 * To all, I'm still feeling out how this top-level structure should form. Torture is coming along, although I'm getting to a point of diminishing returns for now, perhaps an awkward metaphor. Were you thinking, Chris, about the psychiatric effects of torture &mdash; and, perhaps, the successful resistance to it or comparable conditions (e.g., Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning, about how he dealt with Auschwits)? I'd say these all could be talk page comments at torture, except there are obviously broader implications and potential articles, cutting across social sciences, law, philosophy, military and health sciences. Where to discuss them? (I dislike the Forum format). Howard C. Berkowitz 04:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what I was thinking really, I'm not well read in the area. However, when I read about the pit of despair I found it quite shocking with regard to the psychiatric consequences. Before then i had never really considered the long term consequences of some kinds of torture, or combat, now I think about it. Certainly I was not thinking about resistance, although that too is interesting. Chris Day 06:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The effects of combat, to say nothing of newer insights into combat stress, are a whole additional subject. There's no single form of combat stress, even within a culture, when you start looking at roles and training. Yes, there is substantial data about continuous ground combat for conventional forces. The dynamics are quite different for behind-the-lines specialists. Typically, the more distant one is from the human targets, the less stress (see http://www.killology.com), but there are striking exceptions: pilots often are seen literally "above it all", but I know the torment of a U.S. Naval aviators who was given, during the early days of the Korean War, orders to strafe refugee columns that the North Koreans were using for tactical cover. War is not nice, yet there are moments of the highest human conduct. As Robert E. Lee put it, "It is well war is so terrible, lest we become too fond of it", or, from your side, Wellington observing there "is nothing half so melancholy as a battle won than a battle lost." Howard C. Berkowitz 06:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sent you an email.
Let me know if you got it, I think I sent it to the right place. But that whole thinking thing has gotten me in trouble before.. --Todd Coles 17:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Style
Well Jensen was right on that point. It should be US over U.S. If it is U.S. then it is N.A.T.O. and E.U. and U.S.S.R. and N.A.F.T.A. and T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L.  Russell D. Jones 12:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's one of those things that Larry as EiC once decided: if you're a Brit you can write UK, if you're a 'Merkin you write U.K. I personally am a U.S. man, although for the others you cited I'm neutral. Hayford Peirce 15:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't have a preference; I'd like the search engine to be flexible or to have redirects. In military professional writing, it makes little diference if it's American or North Atlantic Treaty Organization: missing periods. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm definitely in the US camp here, although that is probably not surprising since I am from the UK. Chris Day 15:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Chicago Manual of Style says -- in most cases -- to omit the periods in country abbreviations (UK, USSR, GDR, etc.), but makes a grudging exception for U.S., which "traditionally appears with periods," but it also permits, and seems to favor, US. "Writers and editors need to weigh tradition against consistency. In running text, the abbreviation (in either form) is permissible when used as an adjective, but United States as a noun should be spelled out."  Whatever.  As long as we don't adopt the atrocity "USA" as noun (as the birdcage liner known as USA Today does).  Bruce M.Tindall 17:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The NYT Manual of Style uses U.S. in all cases. They have their own code: W.H.O, but CBS. etc. etc. Hayford Peirce 18:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we just need to be consistent. At present there are articles with both U.S. and United States. Is this random or is there a rationale? Chris Day 06:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Heads Up
See my talk page here. Sounds like a productive new member is about to apply to CZ. Chris Day 05:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Guantanamo name moves
"Talk:Guantanamo detention camp moved to Talk:Guantanamo Bay detention camp (Guantanamo Bay is the actual name and should be used)"

Actually, Hayford, neither "Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp" nor "Guantanamo Detention Camp" are really correct. Neither is, as far as I can tell, an official term, but I find that the latter is more generally used. To the best of my knowledge, no prisoners are in the Bay itself. For that matter, I do not believe the lease agreement gives the U.S. control of the waters of the Bay, rather than the right of passage.

There is, and has been, Naval Station Guantanamo Bay. That is the proper name of the overall base. "U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba" is used in Department of Defense and USSOUTHCOM news releases, as well as Guantanamo detention center. The Executive Order about its closing never really uses a name.

At Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, the detention organization is Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO), which reports to United States Southern Command. JTF-GTMO is a merger of the original JTF-160, which set up and initially operated the detention facilities while JTF-170, set up a couple of weeks later, was responsible for the intelligence function.

JTF-GTMO actually operates several facilities, with highly informative names such as Camp Delta.

If needed, I can provide pointers to primary documents.

Howard C. Berkowitz 02:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merde! I wrote this reply about half an hour ago and then apparently didn't save it! Geez!!! Anyway, here it is again, more or less: I Googled G. B. detention center and got 66,900 hits. Then G. detention center and got 10,500 hits. So I Moved it. I don't really care whether this is the 10000000% accurate name or not -- that's what people are looking for. And G. B. really *does* exist.  This is an argument that has been hashed over a gazillion times in the last 18 months, particularly when the Late UnLamented Prof. Jensen was hanging around. The solution is to make A GAZILLION REDIRECTS.  So please feel free to start creating them!  Cheers! Hayford Peirce 03:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Then redirect, but don't change the name without some prior coordination &mdash; that's a maintenance issue. When I tried to fix a dead link, I kept getting the redirect until I figured out what was going on. Search engines will find the redirect, no? This is much like the issue in biology: the scientific name is the primary article name. I really don't care what statistics you find in Google, but I want to be able to find the article if I need to work on it.


 * For a while, I'm not going to do anything in mainspace other than corrections, and that doesn't include redirects. I will make some limited contributions on talk pages, and I will do some work in sandboxes. Until my major open issue is resolved, I am taking a hiatus from contributing content. It's not the primary part of that issue, but I also do consider that article names are a editor or workgroup call, not Constabulary. I am not going to agree with a "use what people are looking for", based on Google, for primary article names. If it's in my area of expertise, I'm going to use what I consider the proper name. This may be moot, as this arguing is not fun, not interesting, and I'm not going to play the game. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I should have made it clear: when I made the Move change, I was NOT acting as a Constable, just an author. Authors make Moves all the time.... Hayford Peirce 04:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So where does that leave us, Hayford? Correct me (Chris, are you reading), but I am of the understanding that Biology generally uses the scientific name for the article and redirects to it. There's an accepted special case of needing separate articles on organisms and disease(s) caused by them. Health Sciences generally uses the Medical Subject Headings name if there is one. To me, it seems a reasonable expert function to say "this is the definitive name."


 * I certainly think article moves are at least as significant as major deletions and should be discussed, on the talk page, before the fact.


 * Now, in the group of problem articles, part of the difficulty is articles are being created for things that variously don't have real form &mdash; press/politician throwaway lines &mdash; or an article has been written on a topic that really isn't free-standing. No expert can give a name for something that really doesn't exist as conceptualized.


 * I'm declaring a personal moratorium, and protest, on contributing to articles with names that don't make sense to an expert, because I refuse to give into "everybody does it" WP-style anti-expertise. I'm still weighing how wide that moratorium will be, but, essentially, I am limiting contributions to maintenance, talk pages, and sandboxes until I sort out my attitude a little better. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're entering the war zone. Biologists want to use the Scientific names but that was shot down. In my mind the discussions did not come to a resolution. Part of the issue is that even some of the experts disagree on these issues (Mind you, the experts who disagreed were biologists but not taxonomists, so I'm not sure if they count as experts, plus I'm not sure they had a good grasp of all the issues from the discussion, which also leads me to think they should not be thought of as experts). We did, however, lose biologist contributors with an interest in taxonomy because of the impasse. As we similarly bleed due to having no mechanism to credit contributions. These are two issues that are key to us recruiting and retaining experts.
 * I have not followed much of this argument but I do see the pattern of editing. I'm unsure of motive but if our problem is that we are waiting for these articles to become neutralized (for want of a better term describing articles moving towards conforming with the neutrality policy) could they not live in user space until ready to move into the main space? Chris Day 05:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Chris, I believe I've suggested substantial move to sandboxes, as well as cold storage and deletion. Maybe, if I speak hopefully, the author and I might agree to try to decide what articles could be improved and try one at a time. I don't know, but I'm willing to try if that doesn't go off into philosophical arguments rather than focused improvements, and arguments about things that are pretty cut-and-dried (i.e., Articles 4-6 of the Third Geneva Convention actually say XXX, not YYY).


 * Thanks for the information on biology. Military is somewhat straightforward in designations; sometimes there aren't any informal names, and, when they exist, I'd have no problems with redirects (caveat: the informal name has to meet family friendliness, as in BUFF, for B-52, standing for Big Ugly Fat ... Fellow. Yes, Fellow).


 * I am only beginning to realize that naming issues may be a significant problem, in many areas, with expert retention. There always has to be judgment, as with Name, Battle of. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Message
Don't miss this. Chris Day 17:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Queens College -- which one?
You just registered about 16 or so Biology students from Queens College. Not a single one of the registrants' bios state whether it is Queens Colleg in Flushing, NY or one of the colleges in Cambridge University (England) or Oxford University (England). Would you please tell me which Queens College they are attending?

Also, is it okay if I add that information to each of their user's page? And may I also correct the atrocious use and/or lack of use of capitalization in some of the bios? Milton Beychok 22:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Queen's College, City University of New York. Chris Day 23:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Naw, I'd leave their bios alone -- they may have some sentimental attachment to their methods. As long as they don't do it on *other* pages, I wouldn't worry about it.... Hayford Peirce 23:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Welcome
Thanks for the welcome. I'll try to improve it with all of you. Regards! Vinicius Siqueira 01:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Harvard
You forgot to say that that lowly old BA was from Harvard! You're probably one of our best overeducated most appreciated non-editor author here! ;-) D. Matt Innis 03:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (sings) Howard C. Berkowitz 03:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Lol, "let's not be rough, though" hehe, what's that about! :D. Matt Innis 03:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)