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:Approval Manager/Archive 1

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

NOTE: Conversations are archived in the order they were resolved, not necessarily the order in which they occurred.

refusal of an approved article to go away from "to approve" list

Hi Joe,

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial/draft persists in showing on the To Approve List that the Kops look at. I tried putting a null into it and saving, but that didn't change anything. Is there something in the metadata that is screwing up its disappearance? Hayford Peirce 22:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, I tried to fix that. It's happened before and gave me trouble then too, but I can't remember what I did. I'll look again, I guess. --(Approvals Manager 15:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
Got it! It was the difference between "Draft" and "draft" --Joe (Approvals Manager 17:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
Okie, I understand that the article itself is called "Draft", with a capital D, but just where did you make the fix, so I can do it myself if necessary? Thanks! Hayford Peirce 17:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Article categories, including the toapprove category, are placed on the article talk page by the subpages template. THey don't update until the talk page is edited. Usually, it only takes a minor edit to the talk page to get rid of the toapprove category after approval. I tried that but it didn't work until I figured out that I had to edit ".../draft" with a lowercase 'd'. --Approvals Manager 02:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Okie, with that knowledge, I guess I'll just let you worry about this in the future, hehe.... Hayford Peirce 02:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Null edits

You don't have to do this, you know, you can just click edit and then click save. It won't show anything in the history, but will update all relevant categories, lists of links, etc. It's called a null edit.
sorry if you know this, and I'm misunderstanding what you were doing.
Caesar Schinas 13:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Recently, null edits have had the effect of deleting a lot of text. There was a discussion about this on someone's talk page, though I don't remember where. It doesn't always happen, but it's annoying when it does, so I've gotten into the habit of simply adding a space somewhere. Thanks for your note though, it's good to have someone around who understands the technical stuff. Joe (Approvals Manager) 14:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Funny, I haven't seen that, but I'll be more careful in future.
Sorry if I seemed to be teaching my grandmother to suck eggs...
Caesar Schinas 15:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Drugs banned from the Olympics

Joe, I am considering nominating Drugs banned from the Olympics for approval. I did delete 2-3 redundant line spaces and I revised the Related Links subpage somewhat (copy edits and added a link or two). Am I still eligble to nominate the article? Milton Beychok 18:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I have been an Engineering Editor ever since I joined. Its being a Chemistry Editor that was just granted. Milton Beychok 18:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You should be fine on nominating Drugs banned from the Olympics. Those certainly don't look like anything more than editorial changes to me. I knew that you were an Engineering editor before (Earth Science too, right?) but it seems like all of those articles are by you! I figured there would be material in the Chemistry workgroup that maybe someone else wrote. :-) --Joe Quick 18:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Once you've nominated the article, I'm going to suggest it to some biology editors too. Anthony Sebastian is an editor in Biology and in Health Sciences, so he might be a good person to approach. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 18:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Joe, I will review the article as soon as I can, check references, etc., and get back to you here. Anthony.Sebastian 03:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Joe, I reviewed the article. I can co-approve this article, but believe it could use a few edits to render it both more user friendly and more informative, the former by defining certain words, the latter by adding more explanations why certain drugs banned, i.e., some more mechanistic explanations.

Some items that caught my attention:

Intro: define ‘doping’

Banned androgenic agents: consider reversing order of first and second sentences

In respect of the lists of banned androgenic steroids: define words ‘exogenous’ and ‘endogenous’

Paragraph on blood doping should have subheader; otherwise out of place’

Hormones and related substances: first sentence should start with word ‘certain’, and should define ‘peptide’

Beta-2 agonists: should say why banned, physiological mechanism.

Hormone antagonists and modulators: Needs some physiology (why ban aromatase inhibitors?)

Diuretics and masking agents: not clear re ‘masking agent’ versus ‘diuretic’

“The cannabinoids marijuana and hashish are also banned.” Why?

Why are glucocorticoids and beta blockers banned?

Anthony.Sebastian 15:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthony. I directed David Volk's attention to your comments, since he's the primary author of the article. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 23:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Joe, I did not look to see who contributed to the article, just reviewed it on its merits alone, as I judged them. David Volk writes outstandingly for CZ. Anthony.Sebastian 00:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
You're certainly right about that! I figured he'd be the most likely to respond quickly to our comments since he has already put so much work into it. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 02:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Joe, I found David's changes satisfactory. I give my co-approval. Anthony.Sebastian 00:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Another nomination

Joe, take a look here. Milton Beychok 03:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'll be going out of town for a week starting Sunday, but it looks like you should be in good shape without me. --Approvals Manager 23:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

two articles

Hi Joe, there are two articles at: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Articles_to_Approve that I don't understand. Could you check the various dates and History of these and try to make some sense of what's going on? Thanks! Hayford Peirce 16:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hayford, I replied on your talk page. --Joe (04:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)) Approvals Manager

Henry's Law

Hi Joe, see this. D. Matt Innis 02:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hawaiian alphabet

Hi, can you take a look at Hawaiian alphabet, and see if it is ready, or almost ready, for approval?Drew R. Smith 04:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Drew. I see that you already left a message for at least one of our linguistics editors. It seems like the article is still incomplete. What have been the impacts and consequences of the Hawaiian alphabet? Does anyone use it now? What about the indigenous nationalist movement? --Approvals Manager 13:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
"What have been the impacts and consequences of the Hawaiian alphabet?"-- As far as I have found through my research the only impact or consequence was that the bible (and other publications) were translated into Hawaiian. I could perhaps go into detail about how the translated bible helped to reshape politics in Hawaii, but the reshaping was due more to the way the missionaries used the bible, and christianity, than an impact of the translation itself. I have gone into more detail about the impact of the translated bible in Hawaiian bible, but this doesn't seem relevant to an article on the alphabet itself.
"Does anyone use it now?"-- Not really. It's sorta used for street names, but one could make the argument that a street name (such as kapi`olani blvd) uses the english alphabet for a hawaiian word... The only other real use of it is through nostalgic groups trying to revive the language. Unfortunately the alphabet isn't really different enough from the english alphabet to distinguish it when used in modern times. How would I put something like that in the article though?
"What about the indigenous nationalist movement?"-- I'm not sure exaclty what you are reffering to. Living in hawaii, I can only assume you are talking about the various groups attempting to either A) return public schools (or at least the kamehameha schools) to teaching in Hawaiian language, or B)return Hawaii to being a sovereign state. I've never heard of any of these groups being called "the indigenous nationalist movement" though. But I think those would be better represented in an aricle on Hawaii or the Hawaiian language (or both).
Again, I can answer the questions fairly easily, but I'm not sure how to encorporate that information into the article without it being a "grab bag of facts".Drew R. Smith 07:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor edit of an approved page

Please have a look at this: User talk:Jitse Niesen#Complex number page Peter Schmitt 23:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is some discussion on this which I moved to Talk:Complex number#Division and conjugation. Please have a look, and advise the correct procedure. Peter Schmitt 16:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki formatting at Scientific method

Can you please help out with the final brushings there? Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 10:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the first stint. Still to do: Ref. 13, 24, 25, 28, 31. Will try, but help is very welcome. --Daniel Mietchen 21:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem

Hi Joe, I hope I didn't sound too curt, I don't mean to be acrimonious, but I wonder sometimes if I am not concise enough so I tried to be clear. I have no idea if the change is making it more accurate or not, do you? I really wanted to do as you asked, but the more I looked at it, I just don't see how a constable can make the change without Jitse's endorsement. This is the only way around this one, but it doesn't handle the other changes on the draft that probably need to be addressed as well. I would imagine that if we had three math editors that were willing to take a look at them, that would solve all our problems. D. Matt Innis 02:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied by email. --Approvals Manager 14:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Typo in approved version

Hi Joe, would you please consider making this change to the approved version of Vertebral subluxation? Thanks in advance! D. Matt Innis 12:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if that's not a straight forward typo correction, I don't know what is. :-) I can't actually make the change myself and you were one of the approving editors, so I'll ask Hayford to do it. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 16:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a look at it. Hayford Peirce 17:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, I hate that I have to take credit for missing such an obvious type like that :0 Hehe1 Thanks, guys. D. Matt Innis 17:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Approval of Grand Trunk Railway

Joe, I reviewed all of the changes since my last look at the article. I also just added quite a few CZ links. I am still quite happy with approving the article. Milton Beychok 15:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What's gone wrong? Why no final approval yet?? Milton Beychok 03:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
We're waiting for Roger Lohmann to swing through and indicate his support. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 03:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-approval of Grand Trunk Railway

Joe, because of some changes made recently, Matt Innis left a note on the Talk:Grand Trunk Railway saying that the article needs re-approval. So I just nominated it for re-approval. Can you ask Roger Lohmann and Russell Jones (the other original approval nominators) to do the same? Thanks, Milton Beychok 16:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Russell Jones has now signed the re-approval nomination ... but no word as yet from Roger Lohmann. Can you contact him? Milton Beychok 00:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. Sorry about the delay. Your first note escaped my attention for some reason. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 13:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, thanks!

for that, good to know someone is watching after me ;-) D. Matt Innis 01:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)