NOTICE: Citizendium is still being set up on its newer server, treat as a beta for now; please see here for more.
Citizendium - a community developing a quality comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free. Click here to join and contribute—free
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report -- Thanks to our content contributors. --

User talk:Anthony Argyriou

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search

[User bio is in User:Your Name]


Welcome

Citizendium Getting Started
Register | Quick Start | About us | Help system | The Author Role | The Editor Role
Essentials | How to start a new article | For Wikipedians | Other
Home
Getting Started Organization Communication Technical Help Initiatives
Policies Editor Guidance Content Guidance Article Lists Governance
Welcome Page

Tasks: start a new article • add basic, wanted or requested articles • categorize pagesadd definitionsadd metadata • edit new pages

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start. You'll probably want to know how to get started as an author. Just look at Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, our help system and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list (do join!) or via Twitter. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any administrator for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun!

You can find some more information about our collaboration groups if you follow this link Citizendium_Pilot:Discipline_Workgroups.You can always ask me on my talk page or others about how to proceed or any other question you might have.

Have fun and Happy editing! -Matt Innis (Talk) 18:53, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Good to see!

Anthony, I see you are hard at work!!! Keep going,,,, so much to do, so little time:) and welcome again. Matt Innis (Talk) 20:24, 27 February 2007 (CST)

I went ahead and added you to the engineering authors list (see your user page). You would certainly qualify as an editor. Look into it after you get comfortable here. You can add yourself as an author to any group that you would like to edit. Have fun. -Matt Innis (Talk) 20:36, 27 February 2007 (CST)

8 sentences

Hi. The issue is being discussed, see User talk:James F. Perry and User talk:Larry Sanger#On WP credits. Actiually, I have no strong opinions, just would like to set up _some working standards (considering that no author is supposed to "guarantee" his texts forever). As for Irish dance, look at this

  1. Irish dance comes in several forms, which can broadly be divided into social dances and performance dances.
  2. Most competitive stepdances are solo dances, though many stepdancers also perform and compete using traditional set and ceili dances.
  3. Set dances are folk dances of Ireland based on French quadrilles.
  4. There is a distinction between the noun ceili, and the adjective.
  5. A ceili is a social gathering featuring Irish music and dance.
  6. Ceili dancing is a specific type of Irish dance.
  7. Irish solo stepdances fall into two broad categories based on the shoes worn: hardshoe and soft shoe dances.
  8. Reels are in 2/4 or 4/4 time.

Well, I do not know whether 1,2, 5 or 8 identical sentences is enough to give credits (formally it is, assuming we know nothing about authorship). In view of some recent criticism (see CZ:Notice Board#March 27, 2007), I acted quite formally :-) AFAIK, we have a few hundred articles more in need of the WP-credit... Best, --AlekStos 15:39, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

I've looked through these: #1, #2, #7 were introduced by me in this edit (credited when I created the article here). #3 is a rewording of a different sentence I made in this edit. You've got me on #4, #5 and #6 - those three were introduced by 204.73.55.90 in the edit immediately previous to the one where I rewrote #3. #8 has been in the WP article for a while, but it's also rather hard to restate well.
I've removed sentences 4, 5, and 6, and rewritten 8 to expand on it a little. With your approval, I'll remove the content from Wikipedia tag. Anthony Argyriou 19:42, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Imported articles from WP

Hi Anthony. May I ask your intentions with the articles you've imported from WP? Please have a look at CZ:CZ4WP#Citizendium_is_not_a_mirror and let me know. —–Stephen Ewen 22:46, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

Some articles I imported with extensive edits at the time of import, others I copied pretty much bodily because the WP article was fairly good, and felt that the article was worth having, or necessary to have. Details:
Anthony Argyriou 22:56, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

re environmental engeneering

Technically speaking, no identical sentences found :) I'll always readily check an article if you need a test. Just to let you know that a version of the comparison script is available online at [1]. Unfortunately, it is not very convenient, as it requires manual copy-pasting html source code from your browser. Further, the result needs to be interpreted, as this is just a stupid script. When it says that there is a sentence in common, this is often true. When it says "there is nothing in common" then it should be taken with a grain of salt (perhaps a better test would detect something). But I'd say at this stage it is reliable enough. You can check it! Any bugs reports, special cases, improvements suggestions, etc., would be appreciated. --Aleksander Stos 04:07, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

re WPauthor

Hi, IIRC, I had the same problem with embedded links... --Aleksander Stos 09:24, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Deep foundation

Hi, I noticed that you tagged this article as CZ Live and External (checklist). It seems to be a contradiction... IMHO the checklist entry is more accurate, see the definition in CZ Live Category -- but I took no action. Could you please decide the status? I'm trying to finally equalize CZ Live and Internal articles (theoretically they are of the same scope, see e.g. the forum here or here). Thanks in advance. --Aleksander Stos 11:11, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

I'll retag it as "developing", as I have edited it significantly from the Wikipedia article. Anthony Argyriou 15:59, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Polynesian dancing

If you live in Alameda, you should check out the Forbidden Island on Lincoln and try to interest them in Polynesian dances such as the tamure or even, groan, the hula. It's a great place for a drink, too! Hayford Peirce 16:32, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Re: Finance

Thanks for notyfying. I took a look at this and I agree. Well, the article is deletable by the very first point of CZ:Article Deletion Policy. Furthermore, it is in the scope of CZ:What Citizendium articles are not, another reason to suppress the article on the spot. So I should do it. Just letting you know -- in case you want to work on it, you may start from scratch. If you want to I'll leave the checklist on the talk; otherwise it'll disappear with the article. Aleksander Stos 11:11, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm not going to restart that article any time soon, as it's not something I know lots about, and I didn't start it in the first place. I was just skimming through the needs-checklist list when I saw it. Anthony Argyriou 11:13, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
So thanks again, the case is closed. Aleksander Stos 11:26, 2 August 2007 (CDT)

irrational number

What in the world do you mean by saying prime numbers are infinite? They are nothing of the sort. "Infinite number" at the very least means a number larger in absolute value than any of the natural numbers 1, ,2 ,3 ,...etc. If you mean the decimal expansion is infinite in the sense that it neither terminates nor repeats, it's horribly sloppy language to express that by saying the number itself is "infinite", and I think that's certainly a far less important fact about irrational numbers than what's there now (not that it shouldn't be included eventually). Michael Hardy 20:12, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

replied at Talk:Irrational number. Anthony Argyriou 01:14, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

Sorry!

Anthony:

Sorry we had to "meet" this way, and my apologies for the mess I created; I hope its temporary! I thought I had gotten everything, but the full implications didn't occur to me. Please let me know if I need to do anything to help you get it straightened out. (BTW, Foundation (Construction) is a well done article. I hope the eventual Foundation (Financial) will be equally interesting.

Roger Lohmann 19:46, 13 September 2007 (CDT)


Euro-Cent query

Replied on my Talk page. Thanks. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:20, 15 October 2007 (CDT)


Earth Sciences

Ciao Anthony,

why don't you sign up as Earth Sciences author? You wrote quite a bit after all, and sure enough it is good stuff. --Nereo Preto 05:14, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

Editor's welcome

Citizendium Editor Policy
The Editor Role | Approval Process | Article Deletion Policy | Other
See also: Citizendium Council | Content Policy | Help for Editors
Home
Getting Started Organization Communication Technical Help Initiatives
Policies Editor Guidance Content Guidance Article Lists Governance
Welcome Page

Welcome, new editor! We're very glad you've joined us. Here are pointers for a quick start. Also, when you get a chance, please read The Editor Role. You can look at Getting Started and our help system for other introductory pages. It is also important, for project-wide matters, to join the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list. Announcements are also available via Twitter. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any administrator for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and thank you! We appreciate your willingness to share your expertise, and we hope to see your edits on Recent changes soon. --Larry Sanger 09:07, 19 November 2007 (CST)

Hey Anthony, congratulations on this! I missed the party, I was out a lot over the holidays, but good to see you got editor :) --D. Matt Innis 18:39, 15 January 2008 (CST)

Dance

Check out my improvements for the article on dance, i completely rewrote the introduction; and i hope someone will improve my work. You are one of the main writers on the article about Irish dance. That's why i would like to ask you to check out what i wrote, and make sure you are not going through a layout change, so look in the page history. Micha van den Berg 23:20, 22 November 2007 (CST)

Earthquake

...excellent! --Nereo Preto 04:31, 8 December 2007 (CST)

Just wrote my first article in Citizendium

Anthony, I just created my first article entitled Petroleum refining processes. I would appreciate your comments on the Talk page of that article. Thanks in advance, - Milton Beychok 02:19, 22 January 2008 (CST)

Can you help me with some more information?

Anthony:

I have now written 6 articles that I consider fully developed and uploaded a number of images and photos ... see my user page.

But I have yet to see any steps at all being taken to approve any of them ... is the process usually that slow? Is it because there are few other chemical engineers (if any) in Citizendium? Could you clue me in on the approval process and how long it takes? Thanks in advance, - Milton Beychok 03:45, 29 January 2008 (CST)

The process is somewhat cumbersome, and one requirement is that an "editor" who has not been an author nominate the articles. There are many details at CZ:Approval Process. I'm willing to spend some time looking over your articles, and will nominate those I think should be approved, or leave comments in the talk pages if I think they need more work. You may also approach other Engineering Editors, though I'm not sure how active most of the rest are. Anthony Argyriou 14:55, 29 January 2008 (CST)

Approval? (of Petroleum refining processes)

Anthony, please read my thoughts on your very valid comments and questions about the Petroleum refining processes article ... on the Talk page of the article. Thanks in advance, Milton Beychok 01:08, 5 February 2008 (CST)

Congratulations! Looks like you guys make a good team ;-) [2] --D. Matt Innis 01:24, 10 February 2008 (CST)

Thanks

Anthony, thanks for the approval of Petroleum refining processes. - Milton Beychok 13:17, 10 February 2008 (CST)

Sections

I'm glad you pointed that out because, in fact, I've been adding a lot of sections to articles, as we did on Wikpedia. Obviously not a good idea. I'll read that article mechanics page before doing anything else. Regards, Shawn Goldwater 12:12, 13 February 2008 (CST)

Proposal moved

See CZ:Proposals/Constabulary and note the next task I wrote in...I should have left that to you, but I had already moved it to the Constabulary queue, so a "next task" was procedurally required. ;-) --Larry Sanger

Hi Anthony, once again, I noticed that you took responsibility as driver for "Naming Conventions for Biographies," but you didn't supply a next step or deadline for that. So...I supplied some for you. --Larry Sanger 13:39, 15 February 2008 (CST) The latter refers to CZ:Proposals/Naming_Conventions_for_Biographies --Larry Sanger 13:40, 15 February 2008 (CST)

Would appreciate your comments

Anthony, please take a look at the list of articles created on my user page. Am I overdoing it? Or does CZ think "the more, the merrier"? I started off with petroleum processing articles. Now, I want to concentrate for a while on chemical engineering articles. I would also like to see Chemical engineering get approved fairly soon ... but there don't appear to be many other chemical engineers on CZ. Anyhow, I would appreciate any comments you care to offer. - Milton Beychok 00:08, 18 February 2008 (CST)

You're not overdoing it. I've got a longer list on my user page, though many of the articles are much less well filled-out. I'll have a look at chemical engineering, but we'd probably want another chemical engineer to review it before approving it. Anthony Argyriou 10:53, 20 February 2008 (CST)

Moving proposal along

Hi Anthony, re your proposal, can you check whether it is worded as you like? It looks like discussion has died down. So it appears ready to submit to the Constabulary: please go ahead! --Larry Sanger 12:14, 27 February 2008 (CST)

Your proposal "Naming Conventions for Biographies"

Hello. The proposal record for "Naming Conventions for Biographies", for which you are listed as driver, says that the current step (solicit comments and revise proposal accordingly) was due to be completed 29 February. Could you please update the proposal record on CZ:Proposals/Ad hoc, changing your self-imposed deadline and perhaps the next step? Do you want to change the proposal, or are you happy with it and want to have it approved? If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me. Your newly-appointed Proposals Manager, Jitse Niesen 08:45, 4 March 2008 (CST)

Anthony, as I've indicated elsewhere on the Proposals page, with regard to James Earl Carter, I think it's unnecessary to repeat the informal name at the beginning of the article plus 'formally' in such a case as William J.C. - and nobody disagreed with that. Otherwise, your proposal is fine. Ro Thorpe 14:45, 5 March 2008 (CST)

And once again, your self-inflicted deadline of 7 March has passed. Please update the proposal record on CZ:Proposals/Ad hoc. -- Jitse Niesen 09:17, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

Hi, I assumed that my post was merely a formality; I'm stunned that you seem to wish to consider it seriously. In case it's not already obvious, I'm deeply grateful, and my apologies for popping up with this so late. J. Noel Chiappa 09:08, 11 March 2008 (CDT)

Hi, would you by any chance be able to do me a favour and give me a chance to look at your draft of the 'formal' alternative in your proposal (I still think of it as the 'deterministic' proposal - although I've yet to think of an alternative to 'formal') before you put it out live? I'd really appreciate a chance to comment on the wording before it goes out. Thanks! J. Noel Chiappa 00:48, 21 March 2008 (CDT)
Here you go! Anthony Argyriou 14:26, 24 March 2008 (CDT)

Hi, thanks for the heads up; a couple of questions.

First, the proposals say nothing about why one would prefer one or the other; is it your intention to create a page with the pros and cons of each, or merely refer to prior discussion, or what? I ask because I want to make sure the case for deterministic naming should be given as clearly and directly as possible.

Second, I wondered if proposal2 shouldn't have been presented as 'deterministic' (as opposed to the 'best known as' of 1), although I suppose without any alternative system other than 'formal name' to implement 'deterministic', there's not that much point to that. But it would be nice to point out in some introductory text somewhere that the point of 'formal' is to be 'deterministic', and that if someone wishes to suggest an alternative, that it would be welcome. And now that I think about it, maybe it should be labelled 'deterministic' after all, because that's really the point of it.

Finally, I had one or two minor wording tweaks to suggest (e.g. "JEC, usually known as Jimmy Carter - italics to show change, not intended to be that way in actual text); where/how should I do that? Should I just edit directly on the proposal, make a copy, list them here, or what?

Thanks again for the heads up! J. Noel Chiappa 15:13, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

Feel free to make changes directly to Proposal2. For that matter, if you see any glaring errors in Proposal1, or any inconsistencies between the two proposals where you think they should agree, go ahead and fix them. I'll see the changes on my watchlist, and if I disagree, we can discuss further.
I plan to submit the two proposals to a vote, though I'm not sure exactly how that will be handled - that's up to the Proposals Editor. Anthony Argyriou 18:55, 25 March 2008 (CDT)
Hi, thanks; will do so. Sorry I haven't done it already, I've been really busy. I'll try and get to it this weekend. J. Noel Chiappa 14:05, 29 March 2008 (CDT)

Again a reminder that the proposals record at CZ:Proposals/Ad hoc lists 24 March as target date for the next step (prepare final versions of the two variant proposals; put up to a vote). Please update in your copious free time. Anthony, please let me know when you want the vote to be conducted and I'll organize it in my copious free time. -- Jitse Niesen 17:31, 30 March 2008 (CDT)

Punjabi language

Hi, Anthony, you might like to see if what you did at Spanish language is the same thing that needs doing here. It's all glook to me. Thanks. Ro Thorpe 18:19, 4 March 2008 (CST)

Most of the Wikipedia cruft was already gone, but I fixed the "Language Codes" box. Anthony Argyriou 18:53, 4 March 2008 (CST)

Exactly, thanks - Ro Thorpe 08:36, 5 March 2008 (CST)

Help !

Anthony, I'm disappointed ! About my french articles, I thank you telling I would begin to work. But I contacted the translators you indicated to me and they refuse or do not answer. I asked for help from Larry and Dr.Supten Sarbadhikari. No reply. When Larry adress me a mail about technologies to improve education (03/11/2008), I wrote something just for him (in english !). No reply. When a week later I asked him news about my work, he replied: "I will try to get to it soon". And, until now, nothing. Is it normal or am I a particular case ? Jean-Philippe de Lespinay 07:09, 26 March 2008 (CDT)

Good news ! I just received an email of Louise Valmoria, who "hopes my experience with delays at Citizendium won't dissuade me from continuing to participate and contribute". She proposes to translate for me. Jean-Philippe de Lespinay 09:11, 26 March 2008 (CDT)

I'm glad to hear someone responded to you, as I am incompetent in French. Unfortunately, there are a number of people who joined Citizendium in the past, and have since become inactive without formally resigning. Best of luck. Anthony Argyriou 22:13, 26 March 2008 (CDT)

Your proposal "Change to reversion policy"

And another message from me. Have you heard anything from the Constabulary about the proposal Change to reversion policy. The proposal record on CZ:Proposals/Constabulary says that you intended the Constabulary to have reviewed it by 25 March; could you please be so kind to update the proposals record. Thanks, Jitse Niesen 18:46, 30 March 2008 (CDT)

I have submitted it to the Constabulary, and have not heard anything back. I will update the record. Anthony Argyriou 22:20, 30 March 2008 (CDT)
Perhaps it could also be helpful if you reminded the Constabulary of your proposal. I don't know how well organized they are ... -- Jitse Niesen 08:23, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Separating page name (identifier) from article title

In the midst of a discussion about naming pages for royalty, at CZ Talk:Naming Conventions#Royalty, it dawned on me that part of our problem is that MediaWiki forces us to have the same name for the page (i.e. the page's identifier), and the title on the article. If we could separate those two, our lives might be a lot less complicated, in terms of picking page-identifiers and article titles, since they could differ, instead of having to be identical. (E.g. I'm mostly concerned about having a deterministic rule for page identifiers.)

I have cooked up a fairly simple way (using an optional metadata field, and some small changes to the skins) to allow us to separate page names (identifiers) from article titles (i.e. the large bold name displayed at the top of the page). There's discussion at CZ Talk:Naming Conventions#Royalty, and on the forums here. I'd be interested in your opinions...

I haven't done anything on your prosal yet (sorry), because if everyone like this idea, we could roll this all in together, and I think people would be more accepting of the 'deterministic' proposal if it was only for page identifiers, not article titles. J. Noel Chiappa 22:45, 30 March 2008 (CDT)

Hi, if I came across on the forums as a little cranky, let me apologize. I'm somewhat taken aback, and more than a little confused, by how strongly you seem to dislike this idea.
I thought my proposed scheme was a perfectly natural reaction to the fact that human naming systems are confused, and not unique; we tend to give the same name to different things all the time. So something that allowed us to support that in a clean way, would, I thought, have been ideal.
I also thought it would lessen the heat of a lot of these 'where do we put the article on X' debates if we had two (potentially different) names to play with. E.g. I'm sure people who don't like 'formal names' would be happier if the formal name was only use for the page identifier, so the article title could be plain old "Jimmy Carter".
If there are ways in which have the two be different can cause any problems for the users/writers of the encyclopaedia, I am of course very interested, because I want it to be the best system it can be, and if there are problems I want to fix them.
So, can I ask your indulgence to please help me understand why this proposal seems to bother you so much? Thanks! J. Noel Chiappa 11:22, 1 April 2008 (CDT)
Part of the problem was me having a cranky day, I think. However, I really, really, dislike the idea of having multiple articles with the same name. Even though there are people with the same name (David Clark or Charles II), I want those articles to be disambiguated in the title, with disambiguation pages and disambiguation hatnotes to make it all work. We don't have many resources for MediaWiki hacking, so anything which can be solved in some other way probably should be. Anthony Argyriou 15:50, 1 April 2008 (CDT)
I'm with you 100% on the disambiguation pages, hatnotes, etc; in part because I suspect that no matter what system we use, people will sometimes wind up on the wrong page, and need the best help we can give them to get to the right one. (Speaking of which, I don't know if you saw this post on the forums, but I came up with a way to automatically add those disambig hatnotes to pages.) I remain very interesting in coming up with new ways to help people find their way quickly and easily to the content they are looking for.
Also, there are no MediaWiki changes at all required for my proposed change; just a minor change to the skins (and we have a very active skins hacker in Derek Harkness), and an ever smaller one to the subpage templates (which Chris or I can handle easily).
What I'm trying to understand is your comment that you "really, really, dislike the idea of having multiple articles with the same [title]". What are the practical negative consequences of doing that? If I can understand what you see as the bad effects, perhaps I can work out how to mitigate/eliminate them. J. Noel Chiappa 16:46, 1 April 2008 (CDT)
While English, and any other human language, is imprecise, and human naming conventions as much so, I think it important that We make enough attempt at precision to make it unambiguous what an article is about. Thus, it should be possible to tell at a glance whether at article about "George Bush" is about the 41st or 43rd president, or about the fact that there are two Presidents of the U.S. with that name, plus some minor celebrities besides. We have similar problems outside the area of biography, partly because of "physics envy" in the social sciences - but again, it should be clear when reading an article about "elasticity" whether one is referring to the physical phenomenon, or the economic one. When we refer to San Jose, are we referring to the city in California or the capital of Costa Rica? Or one of the numerous other towns with the same name. We should use English (or other languages, when we get Citoyendium en Français) to make distinctions, so that they are visible to our readers, and our readers know that we know the difference between Charles II of Spain and Charles II of England. Anthony Argyriou 17:03, 1 April 2008 (CDT)

Diversification (finance)

Anthony: Regarding Brian Kelly's Diversification (finance) article, which you wikiformatted, I thought the text could use some editing for increased clarity. I suggested a minor re-write, putting it on the Talk page so as not to get involved yet in editing a student's article. I wrote him on his Talk page as follows:

Brian: See the Discussion page of your 'diversification' article. Click Here

--Anthony.Sebastian 16:02, 2 April 2008 (CDT)

Naming policy proposals

Hi, sorry about that - I got diverted by the whole "'page identifier' versus 'article name'" thing. I'm still trying to work out what to do overall, because in my mind, the two complement each other - I think we'd have a much easier time getting everyone to agree to put the page at James Earl Carter if the title could still be Jimmy Carter, for instance.

The problem is that you're clearly very strongly against the concept of separating page-identifier and article-name, and I am reluctant to try and move forward on that with you being so strongly opposed to it.

However, I can go ahead and work on the wording of proposal2, even without working out that conundrum. I do have a friend here at the moment to help me copy-edit the new quantum mechanics article (which I, perhaps stupidly, volunteered to rewrite after it got us that bad press in the BBC), and so I have to do that first, but once I'm done with that, I'll go look at proposal2; I also need to see if I have any useful response to your comments (above) about the identifier/name separation. J. Noel Chiappa 11:09, 3 April 2008 (CDT)

I'm not certain I'm actually against having the page title and the page name be different, but I do think there should be unique identifiers for both page names and page titles, at which point I don't see a good reason to make them different. With the appropriate redirects, James Earl Carter, James Earl Carter, Jr., Jimmy Carter and President Peanuthead would all redirect to the same article, and it's not that terribly important which of those titles it has. In the case of Charles II or David Clark, I believe that the article title should include the disambiguation, however it's formed - Charles II of Spain, Charles II (King of Spain), or whatever. Anthony Argyriou 12:07, 3 April 2008 (CDT)
Hi, just a quick note to say that I did spend some time working with CZ:Proposals/Naming Conventions for Biographies/Proposal2‎. Before I do any more, why don't you take a look at what I did, and see what you think; if I'm going in the wrong direction, no sense going further before turning around! :-)
As to the pagename/article-title thing, I'm too tired right now to do a good job on a reply. I'll think about that some tomorrow, and get back to you. (I think I had a message on the forum that had a useful point which you might find of some interest; not sure where it was, will have to check.) J. Noel Chiappa 00:29, 4 April 2008 (CDT)

Take a look at my comments on Talk page of Mole (unit)

Anthony, I feel that you will be interested to read my talk comments on the Mole (unit) article. - Milton Beychok 17:54, 6 April 2008 (CDT)

I would like to nominate Geotechnical engineering for Approval

Anthony, I would like to nominate Geotechnical engineering for approval ... it looks deserving to me. Are you interested? Regards, - Milton Beychok 14:17, 18 April 2008 (CDT)

I'd prefer not - I think it's still fairly incomplete. I've been slammed at work lately, and haven't had much time to work on CZ lately; that may change in a couple of weeks (maybe even next week). But filling out that article is something I've got as a back-burner project for a while. Anthony Argyriou 14:43, 18 April 2008 (CDT)
No problem (with the "smalled at work" part). Take it easy, we're all busy doing other stuff! :-) J. Noel Chiappa 19:04, 18 April 2008 (CDT)

Core Articles proposal

Anthony, you said that you were thinking about taking over Larry's proposal to streamline the Core Articles initiative, as detailed in CZ:Proposals/Simplify Core Articles Initiative. Could you please come to a decision? It would be great if somebody could drive this proposal forwards as it's an important initiative that does seem to have come to a standstill. For that reason I'm hesitant to mark the proposal as inactive, but I can't wait much longer. -- Jitse Niesen 10:31, 20 April 2008 (CDT)

ok - I signed on as driver. I'm not sure I got everything properly set up, though. Work will be slow until the beginning of May, as work and landlording is taking a lot of my free time right now. Anthony Argyriou 15:00, 22 April 2008 (CDT)
Great. You should also update the proposals record, which you can find at CZ:Proposals/New#Simplify Core Articles Initiative. I put you down as the driver, but please add a target date for the next step, and if necessary, change the description of what needs to be done now (it now reads: Refine proposal and discuss; get Chris Day to comment). Cheers, Jitse Niesen 05:56, 23 April 2008 (CDT)

And more proposal spam

Your naming proposal CZ:Proposals/Naming Conventions for Biographies has not seen much activity lately. Any chance you could make sure the proposals keeps moving. Also, please update the proposals record at CZ:Proposals/Ad hoc. At the moment, it lists the next step as "Prepare final versions of the two variant proposals; put up to a vote" with a target date of 24 March. Cheers, Jitse Niesen 09:48, 26 April 2008 (CDT)

Engineering articles ready for approval

Hi, Anthony:

Please take a look at CZ:Ready for approval#Engineering. If you are willing, please nominate two or three for approval. Since you did not contribute to any of the listed articles, Approval would only require your nomination alone. Regards, - Milton Beychok 13:10, 26 April 2008 (CDT)

add United States Environmental Protection Agency

Please look at United States Environmental Protection Agency for an approval. thanks! Richard Jensen 21:03, 7 June 2008 (CDT)

Energy

Anthony, Milton wrote a new intro to energy, it is here: User:Milton Beychok/Sandbox2. I find it very good, could you have a look at it and see if it solves your problems? Then we can replace the current text by Milton's text.--Paul Wormer 02:24, 24 July 2008 (CDT)



  • Anthony, after some reflection I have chosen Milton's intro, because it is less technical and more readable for the lay-person. I added at the end of the intro a sentence which basically is your first sentence.
Further, I want to add that the following sentence is bordering on being wrong:
Some forms of kinetic energy (such as thermal energy) are often treated separately, because of the historic circumstances of their discovery, and for convenience.
The term "thermal energy" is ill-defined and hardly ever used. Energy flow is called heat and can take many forms, radiation, transport of potential energy, and also transport of kinetic energy. The fact that "thermal energy" is treated differently is not because of historic circumstance or convenience (in science such reasons do not count and would be soon cut out of textbooks). The reason is that because of the second law of thermodynamics, heat can only be converted partially into work, as discovered by Carnot, Clausius, and Lord Kelvin. I mentioned this several times, and I get the impression that the argument doesn't register with you. Have you ever learned something about the second law?

--Paul Wormer 04:31, 27 July 2008 (CDT)

Paul - the particular issue of heat is not central to my argument regarding the coherence of the article intro; as I mentioned, my proposed intro could certainly have been improved. The reason the sandbox version did not correct the error was that the sandbox version was identical to the originally proposed version. You do not need to be insulting about the issue. Anthony Argyriou 10:11, 29 July 2008 (CDT)
I was not insulting you (and definitely not trying to be insulting), I was just wondering. I see on your user page that you have a degree in civil engineering. I went to an engineering school myself and lived in a dorm where some of my friends were studying civil engineering, so we got to compare curriculums sometimes. As far as I recall, my friends learned no, or hardly any, thermodynamics, whereas I (as chemical engineering student) had to take three different full semester courses (and still find thermodynamics difficult).--Paul Wormer 10:23, 29 July 2008 (CDT)
Anthony, at the risk of "butting in" where I should not, I want to say that Paul and I have cooperated to some extent on a number of articles because there are no other active editors involved in chemical engineering. I want to assure you that he did not intend to insult you. Paul's English is very good, but not perfect ... and therefore it is easy to misconstrue some of his postings. I can understand how you might construe "Have you ever learned something about the second law?" to be somewhat insulting, but I want to assure you that it wasn't meant to be. It was just his way of asking about your familiarity with thermodynamics. I am sure that the two of you can resolve your differences amicably. Best regards, Milton Beychok 13:14, 29 July 2008 (CDT)

Thanks

Anthony, thanks for the revision/addition you made to the U.S. customary units article.

I would also like to thank you once more for having introduced me to Citizendium. I am enjoying it very, very much.

Do you ever get down to Southern California (Newport Beach)? If so, give me a call at 949-718-1360. Regards, Milton Beychok 14:23, 4 October 2008 (CDT)

moves

So you don't see any move tab at the top? This became a problem when they updated the mediwiki software but i thought it had been fixed. Recently I tried to make a template to make moving a cluster a little easier. You can see the link at the top of the talk page, titled "Move Cluster". It's still not as simple as I would like but once you get used to the sequence it should speed things along. Let me know if there are any problems. Chris Day 02:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the "move" tab at the top, either in monobook (my default skin) or in Pinkwich (when adding &useskin=pinkwich5 to the url). I just noticed the "move cluster" link at the top of the talk page, after you mentioned it. Anthony Argyriou 18:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Anthony, thanks for your cleanup edits on Asphalt (paving). Milton Beychok 22:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not start a Civil Engineering subgroup?

Anthony, why not start a Civil Engineering subgroup? Take a look at Category:Chemical Engineering Subgroup and Category:Environmental Engineering Subgroup to see what I mean by "subgroup". All you have to do is ask Chris Day to start it for you.

Then you can route articles into it by going to their Metadata templates and entering "Civil Engineering" (including the two capital letters) at "sub1 = " or "sub2 = ", etc. Some of the older article metadata templates may not have the "sub1 = ", "sub2 = " and "sub3 = " beneath the "cat3 = ". If so, just add them in.

Once that is done, civil engineering articles will be displayed in the Engineering Workgoup as well as the Civil Engineering Subgroup. That means that any CZ reader interested in civil engineering can more easily navigate directly to a listing of all the civil engineering articles.

Although at the moment, Chris is doing this on a pilot ad hoc basis, he has prepared a proposal to the Editorial Council to adopt the concept of subgroups. See CZ:Proposals/Subgroups in addition to Workgroups?. Regards, Milton Beychok 22:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Restart of proposal system

Hello. Due to a lack of activity and attention on my part, the Proposal System has ground to a halt and discussion on all proposals has stopped. I decided to clean out the system by marking all proposals as inactive and removing their drivers. This also happened to your proposals "Simplify Core Articles Initiative", "Naming Conventions for Biographies", and "Change to reversion policy". I would be delighted if you decide that you want to take one or more proposals up again. You can do this by updating the proposal record(s), which can now be found at CZ:Proposals/Driverless. Please do not hesitate to ask if anything is unclear. Yours, Jitse Niesen 22:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC) (Proposals Manager)

Anthony, asking a favor of you

Anthony, I have just finished writing an article about Gasoline in my sandbox at User:Milton Beychok/Sandbox. I would very much appreciate your spending 15-30 minutes reviewing it and giving me your comments on my sandbox's Talk page at User talk:Milton Beychok/Sandbox.

At this point, I'm not seeking detailed copy edits or detailed rewordings. I just want your overall impressions of the article and its contents and any very major points you may wish to offer. Milton Beychok 21:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Anthony. Since Milton left you the message above, he posted the article to the mainspace and it has been nominated for approval by David Volk. David can oversee approval himself since he was not involved in writing it, but it would be good to have an engineering editor sign on too. If you're comfortable with the article being approved, could you add your name to the approval section of the metadata? Thanks much. --Joe Quick 04:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Contributions on tools/techniques?

I've been starting some core articles on tools and engineering techniques. Milt suggested you might be able to contribute some words about petroleum or mineral drilling to drill (tool). I'm open to any sort of add-on/subarticle to tools or to collective articles such as cutting tool or construction equipment. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll definitely add some stuff about earthwork equipment, sometime soon. However, I have been spending much less time on CZ (for reasons which have nothing to do with CZ, just other life priorities), so it may be a while before I get much done. Anthony Argyriou 22:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Outside combat engineering, I mostly know about earthmoving in my childhood sandbox and in the garden. (Actually, I did do some construction finance software). Howard C. Berkowitz 23:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Tetraethyl lead article

Anthony, now that are back again, would you take a look at Tetraethyl lead? It needs a good History section. At one time, you told me that your father had worked at DuPont and knew quite a bit about TEL. If you could tackle that History section, it would greatly improve the article. Milton Beychok 03:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Charter drafting nomination

Hi Anthony,
You were nominated by a fellow Citizendium member to be a candidate for a position on the Citizendium charter drafting committee, but you haven't indicated whether you want to accept or decline. To learn more about what the committee is all about, you can go to the page that describes the process. To indicate that you either accept or decline the nomination to participate in the process as a committee member, you should visit the subpage for nominations; there are instructions on what to do on that page.
Thanks much!
--Joe Quick 03:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Roman alphabet

Thank you for having corrected the Spanish letter names in Roman alphabet.--Domergue Sumien 06:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Every so often I complain about the differences between English and American, then I stumble across the even broader differences between Castellano and Español Americano. There are four different ways to spell the name of 'W', a letter which isn't really part of Spanish. And then there are the differences between various dialects of American Spanish. ¿Le provoca un tinto? Anthony Argyriou 18:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)