User talk:Hayford Peirce

Threading
Moving this discussion from ID talk page. Do you remember if there was already a discussion in the forum. If so I think I missed it and i don't want to rehash old news. Chris Day 17:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was one several months ago, in which I *thought* some sort of consensus was arrived at. Milton, I believe, was writing the text for this blue Etiquette box that we see at the top of the screen, and we were discussing what exactly to put into it. I thought that it was *you* who was doing the actual writing of the template and also, maybe, participating in the discussion. But, I guess, you were just putting in what Milton asked you to. Having gone through that one discussion, this is why I get annoyed, sometimes, when people seem to arbitrarily decide not to play by the rules/guidelines/suggestions/whatever that were talked about. (I think that as a result of the discussion, someone *also* went in the CZ:HowToDo things and rewrote it to say that the use of indents in threading *was* the way to do it, not merely a "suggestion".) Hayford Peirce 17:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)"
 * May I point out, Hayford, that threading refers specifically to the system which you are deprecating? :-p
 * Also, re. "people seem to arbitrarily decide not to play by the rules" - I've never actually come across such rules, and until you mentioned them the other day I had no idea that discussions were supposed to be linear.
 * Anyhow, I am very much in favour of a new discussion or a vote. I believe the form software allows them to be set up very easily.
 * Caesar Schinas 17:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm all for a new discussion, just as long as it gives a definitive, permanent answer. I don't care one way or another, except I do have my own personal opinion, of course. Lemme look for where what I call "the rules" spell it out -- I know it's there somewhere. (I myself didn't just arbitrarily decide one day that we were going to use colons for indents come hell or high water!) Hayford Peirce 17:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here, Caesar, take a look at this: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=CZ:How_to_use_talk_pages&action=edit&section=4 There's probably some wriggle room in there, but maybe not. The intent seems clear, however. I know that *you* weren't here at the time of the discussion (which apparently was back in January), but some of the other people who disagree with the indentation system *were* here and, I think, didn't raise their voices very strongly in opposition. (In their defense, I *will* say that we were struggling with two different issues at the same time. We had just gone through some problems with, shall I say, a "difficult" contributor, who insisted first on putting all new comments at the top of the page, and using/or not using the indent or anything-other system except in his own totally arbitrary manner. It was in a reaction to him that we rewrote the rules.) Hayford Peirce 17:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not read your link yet, but here's the interesting thing. I did write the text in the blue box, but my interpretation of that text seems to be different to your own. Obviously this is more subjective than we had realised.  This makes me suspect I missed the discussion since I think I would have brought this up at the time, if I had noticed it. Anyway, I'll now go back and read the original discussion. Chris Day 17:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Great! And if, after you find it, you would put a link to it here, I would be very grateful! Hayford Peirce 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So I did participate on the talk page but not on the CZ page. As far as i can tell, the scenario where two people reply to the same person is not discussed. OK it is. I guess I disagree with that example. I should read the talk page more carefully to see what the rationale was.  For your information, I would have thought the example in that link should look like the following since both lisa and george are replying to Bob. In the current example it looks like George is replying to Lisa.  Chris Day 18:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Example:

The above will produce this:

Yes, I can see that. Geez, what a can of worms! Hayford Peirce 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It depends what is valued most. An effort to maintain the chronology of replies by indenting or an effort to match the replies in the correct context. Obviously this is only an issue when multiple people are involved in a discussion. I prefer the example where the two replies are on the same level since it is then obvious that Lisa and George are both replying to Bob. In our current example:
 * {| border="1" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"

How's the soup? --Bob
 * It's great!! --Lisa
 * Not too bad.. --George
 * I made it myself! --Bob

I think the soup discussion should be moved to Talk:Soup.. --Lisa
 * I tend to disagree. --George


 * }
 * I had to read for context to determine who George was addressing. The chronology, for me, is less of an issue since you can untie complex pages by stepping through the edit history or looking at the time stamp. For me, reading for context is more time consuming on a busy talk page. Obviously neither solution is near perfect. Chris Day 18:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the example seems pretty clear to me; it shows threading.
 * Bob asks how the soup is. Lisa and George people answer him, each indented one level. He then replies to George of them, indenting a further one level.
 * Below, a separate discussion is taking place. Lisa suggest moving the soup discussion, and George replies - indenting one level - to say that he disagrees.
 * The only complaint I have about the example is that the spacing is a little weird. I think we should allways leave a blanbk line between one comment and the next, with the possible exception of if they are both by the same person.
 * Caesar Schinas 06:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Lisa and George people answer him, each indented one level." The problem is that our current example does not do this. I agree about the blank line. it makes it much easier to find the relevant text when in edit mode. Chris Day 17:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah yes; I see that now. I had thought the first example was a copy-paste from the instructions, because I just skimmed the posts above... never a good idea! Caesar Schinas 21:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's start a new one, to clear the air
Oh, I thought you meant you were going to find a Forums discussion. Am I misremembering and *all* of the discussion was on a talk page (or more than one talk page). If you will recall, because of Dr. Cohen, this was a contentious subject at the time. Hayford Peirce 18:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh I see, sorry for the confusion. Your original link went to an edit page for me. I actually don't remember any of this discussion, my mind must have been on other things, even though I participated. Chris Day 18:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's confusing because I think we had *two* ongoing discussions, one (or more) in the talk pages, and another in the Forum. I think I can say without fear of contradictions, however, that any *new* discussion will probably bring up the same arguments. I think that what I *may* have said at the time, in one place or another, was that it didn't so much matter as to *which* system we chose, but that we should only have one, to prevent confusion and acrimony. Which, of course, has again arisen. Hayford Peirce 18:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Unifying concepts
It's...it's...(Monty Python) the Soup [threading] Nazi (extended Seinfeld). Howard C. Berkowitz 18:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Replace template in Approved article
Hayford, would you mind changing the following, at the beginning of Tux?

Currently



Please change to

Thanks, Caesar Schinas 06:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Caesar Schinas 16:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Monster crisps
Yes, Pringles, how I used to love them, but a health scare forced me to give them up about a decade ago - nice article in the NYT. We have the odd situation wherein there are separate articles on the very similar chips/chipped potatoes and fries, but none on crisps/potato chips. That sent me back to the language articles, but I don't know that I could start a new one on such a scientific subject; I could essay an opening definition, perhaps, after dinner. Crisps are potato-based snacks found in English pubs, hmm... Ro Thorpe 18:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I gotta say that Pringles actually taste pretty good, particularly the sour cream-chives one, even though they're all frankenfood monsters grown in a vat.... As you say, I was surprised there was no article. There were a couple of Dereks here a couple of years ago who did some stuff, then vanished, I thought that one of them had done it.... Hayford Peirce 19:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Ketoconazole
Thanks for the approval work Hayford. David E. Volk 12:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Asneira
is a nice Portuguese word for what I did yesterday, moving a talk page instead of the page itself. And my efforts to undo the mistake have only made matters worse: Violin Concerto No. 1 (Bruch). But I'm sure Officer Peirce can help. Ro Thorpe 13:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What exactly are you trying to do? Should the article be at Bruch Violin Concerto Number 1 and the talk page at Talk:Bruch Violin Concerto Number 1, or the article at Violin Concerto No. 1 (Bruch) and the talk page at Talk:Violin Concerto No. 1 (Bruch), or what? Caesar Schinas 14:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The article should be at Violin Concerto No. 1 (Bruch) & the talk at Talk:Violin Concerto No. 1 (Bruch). Ro Thorpe 14:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is that OK now? Caesar Schinas 15:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

ToApprove articles
Hayford, I've been in contact by email with Robert Badget about those articles. I'll let you know when everything is straightened out. --Joe (04:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)) Approvals Manager


 * Should be all straightened out now. Both are due for approval on July 1st. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 16:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I revised CZ:Article of the Week. Provided a 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 23:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

approvals
Thanks for taking care of folk saint. Did you notice that Randomized controlled trial and Evidence-based medicine are both scheduled to be re-approved today too? --Joe (Approvals Manager) 21:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I did those two first, for practice. They're actually easier to do than the real Approval. So you can remove them, or move them around, or renumber, or whatever needs to be done.


 * Huh. It must have taken longer for the cache to clear or something.  When I left the message above, it looked like they were still awaiting a constable.  They look fine now, though.  I'll post a note on the approvals announcement page. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 22:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh. By the way, Roger found a typo in the lead paragraph of folk saint. Could you fix it on the approved version?  Thanks much. --Joe Quick 21:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure. Hayford Peirce 21:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Constable issue
Hayford, you are a constable: Do you think this is a case where an approved article should be changed? See User_talk:Jitse_Niesen Peter Schmitt 22:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Dutch article
Hayford, can you please delete Kroese brands & behaviour because (1) it is an advertisement (2) it is straight from the Dutch WP (placed there by user:MarkBoukes and it is about to be deleted) and (3) it is in Dutch. Thank you. --Paul Wormer 11:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wanted: comma
Hi, Hayford. Someone has edited the 'This is a draft article' thingy, and, well, it looks a tad dummm... But I don't know how to put in the comma, perhaps you can. Ro Thorpe 18:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Gimme a klew, myte, as to where this thingee might be! Hayford Peirce 18:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, at It Won't Get You Anywhere, for example. This is a draft article..., the panel that appears at the top of all draughty articles. It looks as if someone has rewritten it, because I don't think it used to be in bold, but neglected to put a comma after 'cited'. Ro Thorpe 18:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah. There's a long discussion going on about it in the Forum. I've rewritten it as follows: "This is a draft article, under development and not meant to be cited, but you can help improve it. These unapproved articles are subject to a disclaimer." If you agree that this is what it should be, lemme know and I'll tell the Forum chappies -- Lord knows what they're doing and where.... Hayford Peirce 18:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Thanks! Discussion about it?!? Ro Thorpe 19:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You gotta keep up wid de times, myte! http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2771.30/topicseen.html Hayford Peirce 19:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's fixed now. And thanks for the mention! Ro Thorpe 20:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Idly wonders if a "missing period" would bring up as much attention in BE. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hayford, please look at first sentence of Chemical elements
Hayford, would you please look at first sentence of Chemical elements purely from the viewpoint of grammar and use of the English language? Then let us have your opinion here on the article's Talk page? Thanks, Milton Beychok 04:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to edit summary
"there's no article about the Pacific Theater?!"

Lol. Not if you or Howard haven't made it. Apparently there's nothing on D-Day either.Drew R. Smith 04:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't quite decided whether to do a complete rewrite of World War II, Pacific, but I have done a lot. Technically, there was no single formal Pacific Theater. At a minimum, there was Pacific Ocean and Pacific Ocean Areas under Nimitz, Southwest Pacific Area under MacArthur, and China-Burma-India, which then split into China under Stilwell and Southeast Asia under Mountbatten, with Wavell in India. XX and XXI Bomber commands, operating against Japan, reported direct to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.


 * For D-Day, see Battle of Normandy, and other associated articles. I need to get the BOLERO-SLEDGEHAMMER-ROUNDUP vs. OVERLORD-NEPTUNE in a more coherent place. Technically, any invasion day is D-day, at H-Hour and M-Minute. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wordnik dotcom
Thanks, it's great. And I also like typing in names of places & looking at the pictures (e.g. Westerham). Ro Thorpe 14:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

leftover Eduzendium article
Hayford, it seems to me that Sympatric speciation can go.--Paul Wormer 11:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You have enemies
Hayford, just for the fun of it, I checked here again. Two guys, who apparently don't like you, wrote comments (at the end of July). For the record: I don't agree with their comments. --Paul Wormer 07:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * He should take them to court &mdash; tennis court, that is. It's hard to be anon when being hit by balls. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

science fiction / science-fiction
Please let me know when to use "science fiction" (without a hyphen) and when to use "science-fiction" (with a hyphen). For example, of the two definitions below, which is correct?


 * 1) Alfred Bester: (1913-87) American science fiction writer; wrote The Demolished Man.
 * 2) Alfred Bester: (1913-87) American science-fiction writer; wrote The Demolished Man.

I will be posting a working list of sf writers and works in a day or two and would like to begin working on the definitions.

James F. Perry 16:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's with a hyphen when you use the phrase to modify or describe someone or something. Such as "Alfred Bester was an American science-fiction writer who wrote science fiction of the very highest quality." This is called a "compound modifier" and is ignored by some people but actually is correct. See the Wikipedia article about them, with the science-fiction example that I furnished. Cheers! Hayford Peirce 17:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note my request for Speedy deletion
Hayford, please note my request that Heat Recovery Steam Generator by speedily deleted for the reasons stated in the template. Milton Beychok 07:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone put in a whole bunch of other articles to delete that I don't understand so I left them alone. Yours must have been among them and I didn't bother to look at it. Let me know personally if you have any more to delete so that I'll be sure to do it. PS -- you might take a look at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Speedy_Deletion_Requests and tell me what's going on with these if you can figure it out. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 17:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems to be caused by Daniel's Related Articles bot. I left him a note about it. Peter Schmitt 19:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

What is with this article?
Toxoplasma gondii* --Paul Wormer 15:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It was apparently a misplaced Eduzendium article. I found the original one at Toxoplasma gondii and either deleted or restored the other one. In any case, I think it's gone, and the real one is there. You can check again and let me know if the bad one is still wandering around somewhere. Hayford Peirce 17:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

and with this one?
Hominin intelligence --Paul Wormer 15:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently an article that never got written. I've deleted it. Hayford Peirce 17:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * /Definition and /Related Articles still exist. Peter Schmitt 17:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please point me to them and I'll zap 'em. Some of these things are relatively arcane for a poor dumb Kop like me. Hayford Peirce 18:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * They already show the speedydelete template. By the way, I think that -- to assist cops -- deleting tools should offer to choose from the complete cluster. Don't they? Peter Schmitt 19:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okie, they're now gone. Thanks. I didn't see them there because there are a lot of other "related" delete requests that I don't know what to do about, or where they came from. So I'm leaving them alone. Yes, you would *think* that the deleting tools would delete the entire cluster. Sometimes they do, I think. But there's no on-off switch that I know of that the worthy constable can click.... Hayford Peirce 19:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you send me a screenshot of the list of related articles up for deletion? Peter suspects that the related article bot may have something to do with it, and even though I strongly doubt that, it is perhaps better to have a closer look. --Daniel Mietchen 19:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Can't you just go here? http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Speedy_Deletion_Requests If not, I'll send you a screen shot.... Hayford Peirce 19:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, been there, and it's mysterious to me too. None of those that I checked did have the speedy template or deletion category but they seem to have been created when Caesar was testing the bot. I will try to fix them manually and get back to you if this fails. --Daniel Mietchen 20:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed them. --Daniel Mietchen 20:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(Oops -- I linked the wrong section. Should be .) Did you notice that Category:Speedy delete is listed (below the edit window) when you edit the page? Peter Schmitt 20:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, hadn't seen that, but now they're off the list. --Daniel Mietchen 20:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't always want to use the delete template, because I'm not always sure that the article ought to go. I then prefer the constable to have a fresh look.--Paul Wormer 06:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that some pages &mdash; and Related Articles in particular &mdash; appear on the list due to transclusion of content from pages that have indeed been tagged. So if you don't see a speedy tag on a page in the list, please keep letting me know. However, if you killed off all those who had the tag, the others should disappear from the list as soon as the deletion jobs are through the queue. --Daniel Mietchen 19:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. I *only* deleted the ones that had the template on them, along with the name of the requestor and an explanation. Hayford Peirce 19:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Same problem again &mdash; the Related Articles pages of Whiskey, Marmite and Sandwich had not been speedy-tagged but transcluded content from a page that had. This is no problem in this specific case, since all three pages had been bot-created anyway, and the bot will most probably add them again tonight. But to reduce further confusion with the transcluded definitions, I changed the instructions such that  is to be preferred. Will put this in the forums too. --Daniel Mietchen 19:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Kamehameha I
Thank you Hayford your help. I usually wait until I'm done with the article to add the subpages, however if it is common practice to add it even if the article isn't done, I'll start doing so. I also agree that in the current state the article looks best with the TOC on the right, however I am planning on adding at least a small infobox and some photos/paintings, so I may have to move that around a bit. Either down, or back to the left side.Drew R. Smith 09:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Plato, Socrates, Aristotle
I would not consider them for inclusion in the Lit WG core articles listing. My reasoning is that an article on each of these would go with the Philosophy WG as the primary WG. So I would only list those authors whose primary CZ workgroup would be literature. Anyway, that is my reasoning. James F. Perry 19:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, almost certainly. I was more wondering than anything else.... Hayford Peirce 20:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

" I don't think that TOC are ever put on the LEFT side -- pictures are. can you switch the TOC and the info box? thanks"
Actually, left side TOC's are pretty much the norm. Go through a bunch of random pages using the random page link, and the only ones with a right side TOC are your articles. Every other article, including one of the two mainpage articles, uses a left side TOC.

That being said, I'm not against a right side TOC. I think it should be up to the author to determine what looks best. In my opinion, a left side TOC looks best with the Kamehameha article.Drew R. Smith 09:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll be darned! I just did ten random pages (out of about 20 in order to get ten with TOCs) and was amazed to see that there were nine LEFT and only one RIGHT. I guess that I and my friends just always used Right, so I assumed that this was the natural way. Left is probably the Default setting, I would say. Geez, I learn something every day! Hayford Peirce 17:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As my dad always told me, "if you didn't learn something new today, why'd you get out of bed?". Anyway, I hope I didn't come across in a negative manner. Getting a point across without sounding negative is so difficult over the internet.


 * In this particular case though, you were alot closer to being right than if you had made that comment about one of the other artices that have the TOC on the left. What I mean by that, is that I don't particularly like the TOC on either side for Kamehameha I. Honestly, it looks best below the infobox, but that seems to defeat the purpose of having it. Any ideas?Drew R. Smith 03:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, no, you weren't negative at all. I think the placement of the TOC box is purely subject and how it looks is very dependent on the browser, its settings, and the size of the monitor. It will vary from person to person. All that I *really* object to is large, or even small, areas of white space, which can usually be eliminated by putting the TOC at the top of the screen.


 * I agree completely, however in the case of this particular article, it still doesn't look good even with the white space eliminated. As I said before, it looks best below the infobox, but I haven't kept it there because that defeats the purpose of having a TOC.Drew R. Smith 01:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

typo correction on an approved article
Hi Hayford, Could you make the typo correction Matt asked about on the approvals manager talk page? He was involved as an approving editor for the article, so it's best for another constable to take care of it. Thanks much. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 16:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Lavoisier
Hey Hayford, you screwed up the metadata of Lavoisier with all that moving. --Paul Wormer 17:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Geez, I didn't mean to! I just did a regular Move like I've done 50 times before. Has some of the metadata been screwed up by all the bot templates and stuff that Daniel has been doing? I mean, I can always undo the Move, I suppose, but if we don't Move it, how do we rename the article? Hayford Peirce 17:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, I do a new one.--Paul Wormer 17:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Blank user page
Hi. Just noticed that this userpage is blank. He is also an Editorial Council member. I assume the bio should be restored, but maybe the categories commented since he's been inactive for some time? John Stephenson 01:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the page history, he blanked it himself about 16 months ago (April 20, 2008). According to his contribution page, his last contribution was to vote on a Editorial Council vote in July 2008 (13 months ago).


 * That all indicates to me that he simply has left us for good. Why not just delete the page? Or place it in "Cold Storage"? Milton Beychok 02:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I had figured out all of the above. I was just about to ask Matt to take a look. There are, I believe, various issues involved. As I recall, when someone leaves, generally acrimoniously, he sometimes askes the Kops or Larry to blank various pages. Usually it's done, I guess. I'll ask Matt. Hayford Peirce 02:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ... and his only contributions (except some talk) have been to Church of Scientology (and once to Butler where he has/had a professional interest). Peter Schmitt 10:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have just checked at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:CZ_Editorial_Council_Members and he is still a member, although not, apparently, an active one. Since the Editorial Council is, roughly, like the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.K. Parliament, it is quite important to CZ and being a member is important also. It is also important that anyone at all be able to view the biographies of any of these members. I have therefore restored his biography and Protected it (as well as his Talk page) so that it will remain visible. If Mr. Ferry formally resigns from the Editorial Council, and formally asks that his biography be removed, then we will consider what to do at that time. Until then, his User Page will remain visible. Hayford Peirce 15:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Using, Hayford is right on track. We've generally preferred to have some bio available for others to review, especially if they were active on a particular article (such as Butler).  This is almost mandatory for an editor that has an approved article, simply because the reader is going to want to know who approved the piece.  This isn't as essential for authors, but either way, a constable has been given the duty to make that assessment. I think it is important to protect the author/editor first, then the project second when making that determination. D. Matt Innis 20:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Nutters
Now you've put your little parenthesis in, I am reminded that the verb to nut can be a colloquial synonym for headbutt, though I'd say the latter is the usual expression in BrE too. As for nutters, they are usually nutcases, or loonies, so you can imagine I was a little puzzled by your opening sentence at first.

A Brit is now nº 2 in men's tennis, I've just heard on the radio. Amazing. A Scot, mind you. Ro Thorpe 23:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dunno, I always thought using one's head as a weapon a trifle dangerous, if not exactly manly...60s slang, anyway, I suppose: don't remember ever hearing it myself.


 * Yes, I read your description of the Perry-Kramer relationship. No Mr NiceGuy Perry, indeed not. Both were excellent summarisers, though, Kramer on TV, a foil to Maskell, Perry on radio, ditto Christine Janes/Max Robertson (he still alive at almost 94). Ro Thorpe 00:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No doubt you're right that it was Perry on ITV in 1968: my memories of him on the radio are from the 80/90s. I'm watching the article, & I'll be interested to see what you do with it... Ro Thorpe 16:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Grand trunk
We're ready to go on approval of Grand Trunk Railway. I just received an email from Roger saying he supports the version confirmed by Russell and Milt. See my note on the talk page. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 17:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Adams-Onís Treaty is past due for approval too. The current version is the one Roger nominated, so it should be good to go. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 20:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I was wondering about that but was waiting to hear from you -- I'll do it later today after I watch the Tiger for a while.... Hayford Peirce 21:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

CZ:Years
Can you please undelete this one? I have redirected much of the remaining days and years links to it. This should prevent people from starting such articles again and again. --Daniel Mietchen 19:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've done it, successfully, apparently. Hayford Peirce 20:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 20:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on Earth's atmosphere
Hayford, Earth's atmosphere is my first venture outside my field of expertise. I would appreciate any comments you may offer. Milton Beychok 19:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles on books...
I'd like to write an article on a book I recently read, The Age of Ra by James Lovegrove, and I wanted to take the time to ask a couple people about the mechanics of articles about books.


 * 1) Are plot summaries ok?
 * 2) Are lists of Characters ok, main characters or otherwise?
 * 3) Is it ok to take a picture of the front cover to use as a picture for the article?
 * 4) Is it ok to include an average retail price?

and finally

If included, should any of these things be put on a subpage?

Thanks Hayford - Drew R. Smith 05:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've written a number of articles about books. You might glance at them to get an *idea*, nothing more, of at least *one* way of doing it. The Oldest Confession, The Interlopers, and Mr. Calder and Mr. Behrens (more about the two men than a single book). You could also check out some more articles at the Literature Workgroup list of articles -- actually, there haven't been that many articles about individual books written, although I believe that Howard has started writing about the Hornblower series.
 * Sure, plot summaries are fine
 * Sure, list the characters, but at least flesh them out, like I did with The Oldest Confession. My opinion.
 * Cover images are tricky -- we talked about this extensively years ago but never came to a real conclusion.
 * Price -- sure, but make sure you link it to a date, ie, "In 2009 the average price is...." Who knows what Huck Finn cost in 1881, for instance.... Hayford Peirce 05:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * PS my own feeling is that an article about *any* book, for any reason, is worthwhile, whether it's part of a Masterplan or not. Some other people don't agree with this but I ignore them. If I want to write an article about any book chosen at random simply because I like the book, I'm gonna do it. So should you.... Hayford Peirce 05:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hayford. You were actually the first person I thought to ask, because I know you've written several articles about books. I guess I'll get started now. :D - Drew R. Smith 05:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This a very very minor point, but I do not see any use in mentioning prices. There may be special cases ... Peter Schmitt 15:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd never thought of it myself before either, but why not? The more info the merrier in my opinion. I think I'll go back to my beginning article The Manchurian Candidate and say "The original hardback price in 1959 was $2.95 -- today, in 2009, the most recent paperback edition costs $7.95 and a good used copy of the first edition is in the $150 range." Or whatever. My feeling is that CZ is a encyclopedia, and that *all* information about any given items should, ideally, be found here. So that the reader doesn't have to spend two hours somewhere else searching on the Net for the particular info that he is actually trying to find. I know that not everyone here agrees with this view, but, as long as the servers work, the additional info is, essentially, free. Why not have long, totally inclusive articles instead of short ones -- if someone is willing to write them and they don't just become "data dumps", as Howard calls them? Hayford Peirce 16:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * And how do you maintain this? Listing all discounts? Updates when out of stock? And ebay prices? And prices in US, Canada, Britain, Australia, India, Europe, etc.? :-)) Peter Schmitt 17:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't. We stick in the info that we feel like -- and maybe six years later update it, once again as we feel like it. Hayford Peirce 17:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Buddhist Ethics
Seems like an exact WP clone. Ro Thorpe 22:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

...And by the way, since you're still not entirely convinced, isn't it good to know from that 'E' that you're dealing with an article about a book about Buddhist ethics. Except of course... Ro Thorpe 22:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks very different to me. Are you comparing it to a 2008 article that he imported? If so, give me a link directly to that dated article? Thanks. Hayford Peirce 23:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the one:. Ah, yes, the title, careless of me... Ro Thorpe 23:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Done and done, myte! Hayford Peirce 23:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thorpe does not exist
Neither Ro nor Robert, according to the Guardian of the Forum Gate. So far I've managed to do without participating in the Fora. But I would like to answer Russell's point myself (even though you have indeed already pasted the essence of what I want to say in your opening to the thread). Any ideas? Ro Thorpe 13:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Well, I managed to post it, but it's at the beginning of a new thread, whereas I was intending it as a reply to Russell D. Jones. Can I transfer it, or will everyone see it anyway? Ro Thorpe 17:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha, so it is. Such are the torments of the new boy... Thanks! Ro Thorpe 17:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I've arrived at 'Signature', but no amount of clicking all around there will allow me to write anything in... Ro Thorpe 17:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Hayford, I managed to follow your instructions correctly this time. Many thanks! Ro Thorpe 17:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Righto, I'll have a look at them after dinner. Ro Thorpe 18:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

For some reason I clicked on 'the little tab in the middle of this page that says Profile' without thinking about it, but I hurried on past the next bit: 'then go to Forum Profile Information on the left side of the screen (under MODIFY PROFILE)' - I went straight to 'MODIFY PROFILE. What it needs in both cases is an unambiguous 'click on', I'd say. And after that, I'd change 'and where it says Signature' to 'to the box where it says Signature'. That should be much clearer. Hope I am... Ro Thorpe 22:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat odd article
Hayford, browsing along I came across European Roma in the State of Israel. I am not saying that you should delete it, but the article is odd and definitely (if it stays) should be formatted.--Paul Wormer 15:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me for butting in here, but I disagree somewhat with Paul. That article (created in 2007) is so disjointed and mixed up that it should be speedily deleted or put into cold storage (whatever that is). Just consider what some reader coming to CZ would think of us if he ran across that article. Milton Beychok 16:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It's gone. Also the Discussion page, where I made a comment in March that I would delete it immediately unless someone objected. Evidently I then forgot about it. Thanks for catching it -- as you say, it would be an embarrassment for someone to find here! Hayford Peirce 16:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are there, perhaps, even articles? Howard C. Berkowitz 18:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Howard, you mean 'somewhat even', undoubtedly. Anthony.Sebastian 02:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Genethlialogy
Hayford, you promised to fix Genethlialogy. I'm still eagerly awaiting your changes.--Paul Wormer 08:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't promise to *fix* it, I promised to ask my sister, an astrology guru, about it. She finally did visit me for a while but I forgot. I just put in a phone call to her and didn't get her.  But I left a message telling her that I wanted to talk about this damn thing, so I'm sure that I'll get her take on it in the next day or so.  At which point I will either briefly expand the article, tell you what she told me, or just delete the article. Hayford Peirce 23:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Request speedy delete of Geosequestration
Hayford, I just placed a speedy delete template on Geosequestration. It is a Status 1 article ported from WP in May 2008 and has had no significant editing or content review since then. David Volk added a subpage template and moved WP's External links to the External links subpage ... and Derek Harkness deleted many of the date links (another WP-ism) .... and that is all that has been done. No one has checked the references to see if they were applicable or from still active website pages and no one has reviewed and edited the content.

But even more importantly, it covers the same ground as Carbon capture and sequestration which was also ported from WP by someone, but on which I spent a good deal of time in upgrading and formatting it to a Status 2 CZ article. The Carbon capture and sequestration is a better article than the Geosequestration article and there is no need to have two articles covering the same ground. Milton Beychok 19:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Hayford, for deleting the main article. There are three subpages still out there, namely the Definition, Related articles and External links subpages. Can they also be deleted? Milton Beychok 21:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * They're gone. I've never understood this -- sometimes a Delete apparently removes all the subpages at the same time, sometimes it doesn't. I guess I'll have to be more careful in the future. I wonder if there's a list of orphaned subpages somewhere.... Hayford Peirce 21:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope I am not being a pest, but there is still a Template:Geosequestration/Metadata out there. Milton Beychok 22:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Not now there isn't! I wish Daniel or someone could write a bot or something that would delete *all* this friggin' stuff once someone deletes the Main Article! Hayford Peirce 22:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Add workgroups?
Hayford, I want to add two workgroups to "categories" for the Golden ratio article -- architecture and visual arts -- but do not see how to do that. It is probably those two groups where the most interest in the subject is found. Malcolm Schosha 16:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's easy -- at least once you know how, like everything in life. 1.) Go to the Golden ratio article. 2.) Click on the Talk stub. 3.) There's now a skinny little blue line that runs across the page -- on the far right of the line, in small letters is the link to metadata template: click on that. 4.) The metadata edit page will pop up. 5.) Where it says Variant, add AE (for American English) -- we forgot to do that when the article was started. 6.) Then, a little further down you'll see Cat1, Cat2, and Cat3. Cat1 already has Mathematics; just add Architecture and Visual Arts to the other two Cats. Then Save. Et voilà! Hayford Peirce 16:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * PS -- don't worry if this metadata page looks a *little* different from one you'd see if you began a new article today -- it has evolved slightly over the years. The old one works just as well, however. Hayford Peirce 16:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Malcolm Schosha 18:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not intended deletion
Hayford, it seems that you accidently deleted a talk page which I did not mark for deletion (at least, as far as I know):

(Deletion log); 16:57. . Hayford Peirce (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Pi (mathematical constant)/Proofs/An elementary proof that 22 over 7 exceeds π" (content was: ' ==Title== Can we call this article "Approximations of Pi" and list all modern approximations; this seems awfully specific and targetted.--Robert W King 15:03, 14 August 2007 (CDT) :Although specific,...')

Peter Schmitt 21:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This deletion business is a little trickier than it might appear, don't ask me to go into all the details. Basically, it's hard to know whether to delete *talk* pages or not, when they're appended to main articles that are marked for deletion. If I *don't* delete the damn things, then someone tells me that I forgot to delete so-and-so.  So I go back and do it.  I can understand why talk pages *shouldn't* be deleted, but I can also understand why it can be argued that they should be.  Furthermore, *some* articles marked for deletion don't have the deletion template on that particular page -- it is actually hiding on a *talk* page.  Or, even worse, a *redirect* from *another* talk page.  Geez!  In any case, I'll restore this particular one. Hayford Peirce 21:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not complain. It must be quite confusing to delete a dozen or so similarly named files. (I also overlooked two files.) I started a forum thread asking whether there are chances to facilitate cluster handling. Don't know if this will help. If it interests you: This particular talk page was moved with its main page to a subpage. It contains a long quarrel about how to name the page and there to put it (which I boldly decided to ignore). Would have been a pity to lose it ;-) Peter Schmitt 23:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I know that you weren't complaining -- I was just musing aloud about this stupid delete business. It must have been designed by the same idiots savants who designed the Approval mechanism, with which I just refreshed myself a moment ago while approving Orchid. What an impossible design! As for the Pi article, I remember when it was started and I myself was very much against certain aspects of it, including the name.  I'm glad that you've now apparently straightened it all out! Hayford Peirce 00:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * And I knew that you knew ... These pages surfaced because of the "missing def" initiative, and after Meg has done so many I wanted to empty the list. Peter Schmitt 00:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote, which is gone now. Why? --Paul Wormer 05:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The page is back.--Paul Wormer 10:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not gone but moved - see Pi (mathematical constant)/Proofs. It did not display correctly because of the subpages template. However, the talk page seems to be not yet restored. (The Student Level didn't have one, I think, but the moved main page had one which was deleted by mistake.) By the way, the link from your "list of contributions" should still work, I believe. Peter Schmitt 10:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On streamlining the approval mechanism, I have suggested a possible solution, but received little feedback since. I commented on the deletion thread. --Daniel Mietchen 11:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there still some Talk page that I have to restore? Hayford Peirce 16:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) This one (after the move): Talk:Pi (mathematical constant)/Proofs/An elementary proof that 22 over 7 exceeds π Could it be restored under a different name? Peter Schmitt 23:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I dunno, but I don't think so. Can you read this page at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Special:Undelete&target=Proof_that_π_is_irrational? If so, that is an example of what we Kops see when we go to the Delete Log and then click on Restore for some particular article.  It doesn't look to me as if there is anything there that would let me rename it while I was doing the restore operation. Hayford Peirce 23:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope, you've gotta be a Sysop to see it. I've done a screen capture and will send you a JPG. Hayford Peirce 23:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Keeping up with the Joneses
When I went to James L. Jones, I had a template, which I completed and saved. The article page was fine, but, when I went to look at the talk page, it restarted the template dialogue. This is not something I understand.

A Gordian Knot solution might be simply to note where the subpages are at present, resave the main page without the subpages template, and delete the template. Next, edit subpages back into the James L. Jones page and resave, creating a new template. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Howard,I can't even begin to understand what you're talking about and I'm not going to try. I think it probably has something to do with Daniel et al creating bots to do various things concerned with subpages. If he, you, and others, can't straighten it out, I certainly can't. And I'm going to ignore it. One poor Kop can only do so much -- this whole subpages, templates, and transclusion stuff has gotten completely out of hand as far as I'm concerned. Why can't people concentrate on the *articles* instead of all of this inside-baseball baloney?  Disgustedly yours -- I'm going to bed! Hayford Peirce 05:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sleep well! --Paul Wormer 06:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I never meant to disgust anyone by any of my activities, just saw opportunities for bots and templates to help facilitate the structuring of the content we all build. I did not understand what problem Howard described above, but it probably originates in the subpages system. So if it persists, please give me a more detailed account, Howard. As for bots, I just stopped them. --Daniel Mietchen 22:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I fixed the problem. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleting "Internet"
No, the talk page has content. The template is meant only for the redirect which I cannot overwrite by a move. (According to the help text it should be possible since it is a redirect and has no past history.) Peter Schmitt 20:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okie, the page is gone but I left the Talk page. Hayford Peirce 21:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

CZ:Article mechanics
The guidelines for Definitions have been changed to "no more than 30 words/150 characters". This is not in conformity with CZ:Definitions as claimed: It gives 100 characters, just as is in the info text shown when a new definition is edited. (Personally, I think it is better to request the lower limit and be tolerant if it is slightly exceeded.) Peter Schmitt 23:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw that the change had been made but I didn't bother to verify whether it was correct or not. Are you saying that his rewriting was wrong and that it should be reverted to the earlier version? Hayford Peirce 23:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Right or wrong -- that is not clear. There is certainly an inconsistency: If you start to create a definition you are asked for at most 100 characters. The same limit is given on CZ:Definitions. However, I saw just now, that in CZ:Definitions 150 characters are given, also changed by James to 150, but a year ago, because of the number of words stated there. It seems to me that the original purpose was 100 characters, but of course one might think that this is oo trestrictive. Peter Schmitt 00:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)