User talk:Chris Day/Archive 8

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

Chris' Talk Page

I am an editor in the biology workgroup | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Current talk page (93,380)

Useful links on Citizendium

Your testimony

Please let us have it! --Larry Sanger 21:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I contribute to citizendium as I got banned from wikipedia for disruptive editing. I still edit at wikipedia, and have tried with various aliases and proxies, but they always hunt me down. I don't understand their problem. Fortunately, citizendium is far more accommodating and allows me to write whatever i wish with no checks and balances. At least, no one has deleted any of my stuff yet. Chris Day 21:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC) OK, I admit it, thats all lies. :) I'll have to think a bit. Chris Day 21:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the tip!

That looks very useful.

Cheers! George Swan 01:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the advice. Sorry we had that discussion on Greg's page, though. --Russell D. Jones 16:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

picture experiment

(CC) Photo: Bob Shand
Version 1
(CC) Photo: Bob Shand
Version 2
(CC) Photo: Bob Shand
Version 3

The credited picture above, from left to right are coded as follows:

{{Image|Loch Lomond.jpg|right|150px|Version 1}}

[[Image:Loch Lomond.jpg|right|thumb|150px|{{#ifexist:Template:Loch Lomond.jpg/credit|{{Loch Lomond.jpg/credit}}<br/>|}}Version 2]]

[[Image:Loch Lomond.jpg|right|thumb|150px|{{Credit|Loch Lomond.jpg}}Version 3]]

Version 4
Version 5
Version 6

The uncredited diagram above, from left to right are coded as follows:

{{Image|Logez02.jpg|right|150px|Version 4}}

[[Image:Logez02.jpg|right|thumb|150px|{{#ifexist:Template:Logez02.jpg/credit|{{Logez02.jpg/credit}}<br/>|}}Version 5]]

[[Image:Logez02.jpg|right|thumb|150px|{{Credit|Logez02.jpg}}Version 6]]


Hi Chris. See Template_talk:Credit. Stephen Ewen 16:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi Chris, I need your help with {{Years}}, such that it works properly via {{years}} for pagenames like 2006 and via {{years|1984}} for pagenames like 1984 (year). I think I am close but I do not see how to address the page name itself, and I have to go offline now. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 19:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See the edit I just made. Does that fix it? Chris Day 19:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was it - thanks. --Daniel Mietchen 20:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Morton National Park, and stuff

Chris, thanks for helping with the metadata pages. As you probably guessed, I was having a bug* of a day and kept getting interrupted.

Re Fitzroy Falls, that sure looks like it. Great photo, thanks!

Aleta Curry 22:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Renaming images

Hi Chris, I noticed the typo in the name of Image:ComparitiveBrainSize.jpg but didn't see how to rename the file. Is there a way to do this without re-uploading it? Thanks, --Daniel Mietchen 20:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you will have to upload the image again. Is that a problem? Chris Day 23:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy strategies

Thanks for your feedback, Chris.

BTW -in passing your fine images above! - can you tell me how I can upload the image (of Plato and Socrates) indicated as needing uploading on the Plato page? I'm not the creator or copyright owner, I undestand it is 'outside copyright' (it is also on WP Commons)? Any advice would be appreciated.

Martin Cohen 17:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Martin, when you go through the upload process there is a pretty good step by step guide. however, i just discovered that it has not been completed with respect to the public domain content (drop down menu does not have correct options. i will look into improving that option. Meanwhile just look at the notes I added for the plato socrates picture. I am unsure if I did it 100% correctly and there are a lot of gaps with respect to the background info on the picture. It's a start though. Chris Day 03:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
If I may add a commment, Wikimedia Commons images can indeed be uploaded into CZ ... but only if you can find or obtain the real name of the original uploader. The CZ file upload Wizard states that quite clearly. Hope this helps, Milton Beychok 03:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
But does that matter if the original is on the web and public domain? Chris Day 04:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
If it is clearly stated as being in the Public Domain (or is on the website of any U.S. government entity), then it doesn't matter whether you have the real name of the original uploader ... in fact, you don't need any name at all. As for being on some website, then I always search for a statement about copyrights in that website to see what it says is needed. Milton Beychok 05:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I did not see anything on the web site about copyright, that was my assumption from the statement on the wikipedia site. i guess this is all a shell game. primary sources are the real issue here. So this one should probably go back where it came from. Chris Day 05:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Chris, rather than "go back to where it came from", I would suggest using the "Fair use" option of the Upload Wizard at That is what I have done for one or two of the images I've uploaded. Milton Beychok 06:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. Do you remember which template you used? I note that this is one area that Stephen did not finish on the upload wizard. [1], [2] Chris Day 07:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Chris, since I was using the drawings in articles I authored, I used the one for fairuse-author. And yes, that is one where the License actually reads as "Blah-Blah-Blah-Blah ......" because it hasn't been finished as yet. Milton Beychok 08:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Let there be light, sorta kinda

We have, I believe, infrared light, visible light, and ultraviolet. Ultraviolet is my fault for being inconsistent, but I'm not sure "infrared light" is really the best title. I could live with "radiation" or "energy", and "light" specifically for the visible part of the spectrum.

Obviously, we don't say "radio light" or "RF light", although "RF" is used, with the various subdivisions of ULF to SHF into the millimeter and subnillimeter. Think of analytical techniques -- is the usage "ultraviolet spectroscopy" or "ultraviolet light spectroscopy".

How do I increase the cellpadding in a Wikitable?

Chris, what coding do I use to increase the cellpadding in a wikitable? By wikitable, I mean a table that starts with: {| class="wikitable"   Milton Beychok 09:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It used to be possible to override the wikitable settings by following the class-"wikitable" with the desired values, such as "cellpadding="2"". Apparently this is no longer the case. You could just use raw code rather than the wikitable class. But that seems a little extreme. There should be an easier way, i just don't know what it is, yet. Chris Day 12:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I had read (in one of the WP Help articles) that the wikitable settings could be over-ridden ... but found out that was not so (as you also found out). If you ever find a way, please let me know. Thanks, Milton Beychok 17:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I can't find a way to overide the class so I just went in and changed the class itself. I increased the padding from 0.2 to 0.4. Does that look better? Chris Day 15:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The tables look fine now. Thanks. Milton Beychok 16:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi Chris, I'm aware that I can have my name on all my drawings. But I don't like it, I removed my name on purpose. --Paul Wormer 15:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Could we also pilot an Environmental Engineering subworkgroup?

Chris, I know that we have not yet gotten official approval for creating subworkgroups, but could we also create a pilot Environmental Engineering subworkgroup just as has been done for Chemical Engineering? There are now at least 20 articles that could be designated as Environmental Engineering articles. Please let me know. Thanks, Milton Beychok 23:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for helping tidy those pages, Chris.

Martin Cohen 20:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi Chris, I think it's high time somebody--and probably you, since you technically implemented it--explained clearly and in adequate detail exactly how the "subgroup" scheme is supposed to work. I'm not comfortable with important new editorial policy being added without being acknowledged and passed by the Editorial Council. If you will write up the policy page(s), and if no one else will sponsor it, I will sponsor it if I agree with it. --Larry Sanger 05:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It was always my plan to present this as a proposal to the EC. I needed to see it work in practice before I had an idea of what needed to be tweaked. I'll write something soon. Chris Day 06:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Chris, I know that you are busier than a one-armed paperhanger ... so please excuse me for adding my "nag" to Larry's "nag" about getting that proposal to the EC. As you know, I am very much in favor of sub-workgroup and, as a member of the EC, I am waiting for the chance to voe "yes" to your propsal. Do you have any idea when that might be? Milton Beychok 23:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Email system cluster

I've been trying to get this to the way that David and I worked out in email, but I'm not sure I've got all the pages and subpages working. Some seem to work when I go back a second time--cache issue?

There need to be some deletions.

Here's the bottom line:

Email - System Overview should be replaced, in all contexts, with Email system, and then the former needs to be exorcised. I'm not sure if I have managed to get the demon, or some directs keep spinning their heads 180 degrees. Hey, I lived in Georgetown when The Exorcist was being filmed.

Howard C. Berkowitz 19:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

When creating a new article ....


When creating a new article, three instructional/alert boxes appear:

(1) You may see this box ....
(2) For a new cluster use ....
(3) For a cluster move ....

On my Internet Explorer browser, those three boxes are vertically separated from each other by about 4-5 inches which means that quite a bit of scrolling is needed to read all 3 boxes. Would it be relatively easy to eliminate all that extra spacing between the boxes?

I know you have a plate full of things to do and there is no urgency to this item. However, I think it would be worthwhile to do this whenever you have time. Thanks, Milton Beychok 22:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


It was working for months...what happened?--David Yamakuchi 22:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No idea but it seems fixable. The most likely reason for it not working is a mediawiki upgrade about three weeks ago. Chances are some of the template rules changed. Chris Day 22:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
That sounds about right. It seems like it's no longer evaluating {{Properties}} for whatever reason, but it does still load the "list". I was actually trying to find the MW version update info when you must have noticed my edits and "chimed in" :-) Just like old times eh?--David Yamakuchi 22:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
You mean a ton of edit clashes :) I noticed there seems to be an extra bar between the last variable and the material field. Does that help isolate the problem? Chris Day 22:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The extra pipe should not cause an issue for this table. It seems to me that I had to add it to get something or other to work properly. It didn't seem important at the time...As for edit clashes,'s nice to have help? :-)--David Yamakuchi 07:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's so strange. If I put {{Props|Material=Iron}} into the Expand templates page, it returns text with an _unexpanded_ {{Properties}} template, with the arguments that the Iron/Properties/List "template" passed to it.

Stranger still, if I then copy the "output" syntax directly back to the input box, the template then expands 100% perfectly, right down to the formatting on the units (which is a couple of template levels deeper still). It's like:
"Oh you mean THAT template....well sure I can expand THAT one"
...Open the F$#%@n pod bay doors, HAL--David Yamakuchi 07:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea!

Thanks for that! Anytime you come up with cool things like that, let me know!!!! It is greatly appreciated! D. Matt Innis 18:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem, that was my original intent when I designed it. Chris Day 18:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


Did you mean to have the table of trials on a talk subpage as it is? There seems no place to comment.

I, at least, am totally mystified by this list of trials. There's organization, I suppose, but absolutely to explanation of why they are important to the main table. If there was something approaching meta-analysis, that might raise issues of original research versus synthesis. My best guess is that it is supposed to be in lieu of meta-analysis, defending homeopathy with the existence of trials, but I honestly don't understand what it adds.

Perhaps you can get across to Ramanand that encyclopedic articles aren't overtly argumentative, as this table may suggest, and as a number of his recent short edits seem to be. I certainly can't communicate it. As I commented on the talk page for the main article, some statements, such as Keller's, clearly are opposed to homeopathy, but, as quotes outside journals (Osler is in this category), there's nothing to argue. The thing speaks for itself. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I was thinking it is still in the talk domain rather than being and active subpage. I'll move it to the Trials subpage so you can comment on the talk page.
As far as i can tell Ramanand comes from the quantity vs quality approach to viewing trials. There is something to be said for this when there are so many trials. Its easy to assume there must be some good ones in there if it is said enough. But for me, at least, i tend to prefer looking at individual or small groups of trials using only one remedy (preferably look at the better ones from a methodological perspective as well as from positive perspective for homeopathy). The best studies i have seen to date are less than convincing. They are more like the dubious medical trials that the biotech companies use to try and convince us their "new" drugs are the one of choice. I'm not convinced by theirs or the ones from the supporters of homeopathy. As we all know statistics can be used to show many things. Chris Day 15:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
My all-time favorite description is "Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."
Seriously, there is a whole area of discussion, which Gareth and I (and maybe you) talked about, a long time ago, on the homeopathy talk page. The conventional RCT is not going to work well with inherently individualized methods, and pharmacogenomics may very well fall into that category, especially if we get away from an approved drug model and, perhaps, produce monoclonal antibodies and other biologics.
In both these biomedical areas and things such as homeopathy, I see no reason why the clinician can't define the drug/remedy, send it off to the pharmacy or equivalent, where the preparer selects the trial arm, and then sends back, in blinded form, the experimental or control preparation. The hypothesis being tested moves away from safety and efficacy of specific agents, and more to the safety and efficacy of the diagnostic and prescriptive model.
My most charitable, public explanation of why this can't even be discussed in the homeopathy article is an assumption that the "establishment" uses hypothesis testing only as an anti-homeopathy blunt instrument, and will not examine alternatives assuming they are just more subtle attacks. I remain, however, utterly mystified as why it is so impossible for homeopaths to describe their cognitive approach. If there's a medical discipline for which I can't write a basic summary of the cognitive model, I don't know what it is.
For that matter, I've had friends trained in traditional Chinese medicine, one also an MD, who seemed to have no trouble discussing their paradigms and exploring complementarities. The MD happened to be an OB/GYN and an authority on gynecological ultrasonography, with no particular TCM component of which I was aware. Of course, our discussions were lubricated by excellent Vietnamese food, and, with the other practitioner, probably hormones -- we sort of dated. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hand etc

My hand is getting close to normal so I can type decently enough. Unfortunately, my job is being transferred to Houston in a month, so I have 3-4 hours of commute to look forward to until we can sell/rent three houses in Galveston. That is certainly going to effect CZ time once again. David E. Volk 22:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Community, subgroups, etc.

Hi Chris, I'm sure what you're doing is all well-motivated, but is the Editorial Council ever going to get a chance to speak about what could well be important structural changes to our system? I hope so. --Larry Sanger 19:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and put proposal together incorporating all the discussion to date. I do not view this as an endorsed idea but rather an idea in action; more for testing purposes than anything. Chris Day 19:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Two kinds of CAM

No one seriously proposes aromatherapy as a whole system, but, even if it doesn't have much effect, it's pleasant. With regard to the other form, it has the realism of James Bond: "shaken, not stirred." Howard C. Berkowitz 05:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea about aromatherapy so please edit away on my changes. So much of this is about creating a pleasant environment, which of course is very subjective. We have a local breakfast place where the owner is big time into feng shui. Where she sees positive energy I see nice wall paper, actually, I don't think it looks that nice, which just goes to prove it's all subjective. Maybe adherents of feng shui have different classifications to account for different tastes?
I was told recently (but do not have a source) that in a clinical trial they had two different placebo pills. One was expensive and the other cheap. The expensive placebo was far more effective. i guess this demonstrates that the "you get what you pay for" mentality can give a very positive environment. No wonder designer labels make people feel so good. I believe there is a old fairy story about this, the king that had no clothes, so this is clearly a well known and old phenomena. Chris Day 05:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Let's put it this way -- I don't depend on aromatherapy. Eucalyptus oil, probably simply as an irritant, clears out my sinuses like nothing else. I'll use some skin rubs or incense principally because they smell good, and also because the might be energizing or relaxing.
Back in the late sixties, I was doing some work for the Office of Naval Research. Their psychologists were always looking for ways to improve the morale of submarine crews. (First rule: morale gets very bad if one finds a shipmate likes to sleep with the windows open).
Anyway, they decided the most relaxing smell was that of fresh-baked bread. The chemists were turned loose, and synthesized the aroma. They were rather disappointed when the admiral, to whom it was proposed, said "why can't the cooks bake bread more often?" Since I've started baking bread, there is much to it. While I use a machine for the first kneading, the rest is all by hand, and it's very relaxing -- also very demanding of tactile memory.
Apropos of the placebo, should that have meant that aurothioglucose and other gold-based disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs should have been the ultimate therapy? (yes, yes, I know that many biologics are far more expensive than pure gold. Laymen don't). Howard C. Berkowitz 06:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure pure gold is the ultimate medication. Possibly iron pyrites would do though? :) Chris Day 06:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy and FDA

While I agree you accurately cited the FDA narrative in the article, I added the actual regulation there as well as to the talk page. This may be the first time in history that anyone referred to the Code of Federal Regulations as "snarky". Howard C. Berkowitz 04:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


Chris, occasionally I see some discussions about "clusters" and "related pages", which are not 100% clear to me. I started a kind of portal Electromagnetism/Related_Articles. Is this what you have in mind? I'm open to suggestions for standardization and streamlining. --Paul Wormer 12:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I refined your edits on Electromagnetism/Related_Articles, and wonder: (i) why particle physics separate from physics? (ii) Related topics cover all of physics, is that necessary? --Paul Wormer 09:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Chris, only now (after I saw your changes) did I get the meaning of [r] in those lists. To me it seems that any occasional user of CZ will overlook that browsing possibility completely. Also I wonder whether outsiders will consult "Related pages" when on the main page there is no emphatic reference to it. --Paul Wormer 15:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Paul, these are good points and should be addressed. This all comes back to the usability issues that Howard has been trying to address too. Chris Day 15:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


I'm considering to reuse part of that here (namely the intro and perhaps some of the illustrations or movies). Like most of my papers, it's been published Open Access under CC licenses, so no legal problems to be expected, but I am not sure how this would fit neutrality-wise and in terms of Original Research. Can you advice, or is there a (digestible) policy document on this? --Daniel Mietchen 16:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Since it's published i don't see there being a problem with the original research part. I think the policy is more to prevent unreviewed ideas. Even then, there are the signed articles that can been used for such material. Chris Day 17:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. So I'll keep this option in mind. --Daniel Mietchen 17:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually signed articles are still a little mysterious to me with respect to how original it can be. My working hypothesis is that it would take the form of a review pushing an original synthesis. Whether it could be used as a vehicle for original data is doubtful. This might be a good topic for the forum. Chris Day 17:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't think the original data would be of much interest in the current (No Original Research) CZ (except for the illustrations perhaps, since these could be used on some of the CZ pages explaining the methodology, Magnetic resonance, or the topic, cryobiology) but one has to write introductions for every research paper, and these should ideally provide a balanced overview of the topic in question, and be comprehensible to a wider audience (in the case of PLoS ONE probably anybody with a university degree). This sounds to me highly compatible with the demands on CZ articles. Conversely, if CZ develops such that its articles could be referenced in the introduction of research papers, researchers might soon start phrasing their introductions (and perhaps the rest of their papers, possibly even including original research) directly on such a platform, and the demand for being precise as to what meaning of an ambiguous word one refers to may well help to reduce the heat production in scientific debates. That's kind of my long-term vision for scholarly communication, and I hope you don't mind me bothering you with that this dark Sunday afternoon. --Daniel Mietchen 18:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


Hey Chris, thanks. I figures someone's got to do it, so why not me? Unfortunately, we still have 4800 or so articles without definitions and new ones are created each day. David E. Volk 17:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Morris the Explainer

Hi Chris, thanks (and to Larry) for getting rid of Jake the Explainer and various subfiles thereof. I see, however, that apparently Talk:Morris the Explainer still lives, although there's no Talk:Sam the Explainer. Strange that an apparent scholar like Arne would take the trouble to invent such an article. Hayford Peirce 20:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hayford, I'm afraid I had to undo my own deletions after more consideration of the Google search results. Also, you seriously do Arne a disservice here. I've known him to be a very solid scholar (see ancient Celtic music for instance), and there does seem something about Jake/Morris/Sam the Explainer in professional discussions about the film industry. If there isn't that much about it online, it might be because (1) the terms are somewhat obscure even within the field, and (2) the film industry is small and might be busier making movies than writing about making movies. --Larry Sanger 20:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

See more at Talk:Jake the Explainer. --Larry Sanger 20:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea?

Have a look. --Larry Sanger 16:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Strong Article proposal draft


The major hole is the lemma case, for want of a better term. Can we go ahead without it? Is "strong" otherwise well enough defined for a Proposal?

Howard C. Berkowitz 03:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


Driving in the rain, I had several thoughts.

Right now, the article metadata asks if the article is "underlinked", which I understand to be a subjective call of the author. It is fair to say, I believe, that if an article is "strong", that automatically "underlinked=no" is TRUE. While I recognize it would take programming, code could, as soon as a newly created article is saved, count links to it and possibly set "underlinked".

Would the proposal be better if I emphasized that "strong" is the antithesis of "underlinked"? Do people really use "underlinked" for any particular purpose? We don't, as far as I know, have an "underlinked article" special page, but, using this definition, one could be created. Especially if it was organized by workgroup/discipline, that would be an ideal opportunity for a subject matter expert/editor to look at new articles and perhaps see linkages that a less experienced author might not. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Aspect ratio of laptop distorts images (including LaTeX math images)


I just purchased a new 17-inch laptop. The monitor has a much different aspect ratio (height to width ratio) than does my 17-inch desktop computer monitor. That causes all of the images (other than photos) including the LaTeX math equations in CZ to display rather badly. The LaTeX equations are all .png images.

Do you know of any software or solution to this? I tried all of the resolutions available on the laptop to no avail ... even the same resolution I use on my desktop did not help.- Milton Beychok 00:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Striking board

The description is sounding increasingly kinky. Howard C. Berkowitz 07:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It must be the horse hair. Chris Day 07:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Nay. Howard C. Berkowitz 07:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Winnie you mean? Is it the leather then? Chris Day 07:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Main CAM article and NCCAM

I like the taxonomy of CAM in the NCCAM model, although I'm not sure that its categorization would be universally accepted. For example, I would never have thought art therapy as CAM, as it's a routine thing to find in rehabilitation and psychiatric hospitals as well as long-term care (music and dance there as well). Art therapy is sometimes considered as an adjunct to occupational therapy, since it can improve eye-hand coordination.

Never having tried transcluding, I would have both technical questions on how to do it, and, for that matter, if it's really a good idea to transclude it into CAM since we might choose to change it, giving a link saying "here's the related NCCAM taxonomy". We may also need catalogs for CAM, as there are enough different methods. Matt Innis and I are working with the author of Natural Stress Relief Meditation, which started reading like an ad, but he seems willing to work with getting it to CZ standard. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

moving clusters

Hey Chris, where is the starting point for moving clusters. There used to be a link on the article checklist, but it is gone (IE 7.0). I moved them one at a time, starting with the metadata page and by the time I got to the main article the "move cluster" dialogue popped up telling me that some pages already existed (of course). Is there an easier way now? D. Matt Innis 04:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Chris, with the new method of moving a cluster, when the "move related subpages" is used, does it also move the Definition subpage? Milton Beychok 21:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it moves all subpages and talk pages. The only one that is not moved is the metadata template. In short, to move a cluster we only need to move two pages now. Chris Day 21:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Reason for my notice

I was acting on this suggestion. You removed it. I don't particularly care, but I wanted you to be informed. -- Gregory J. Kohs 19:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Bibliographic formatting

Hi Chris, can you please take another look at CZ Talk:Bibliography#Annotation mechanics, in particular at {{Reftst}} for short-term testing and at {{Archive list}} as well as {{Archive box}} for the longer-term idea of a separate namespace with bibliography-specific subpages? Thanks, --Daniel Mietchen 16:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up on morph(ogenet)ic fields

First, best wishes!

I have followed up (a little bit) on your request for clarifications about those fields. Before I go further, I want to tell you i'd be glad to start with what you'd consider as a basic, well accepted description of morphogenetic fields. Perhaps a wp article/excerpt that seems broadly acceptable? A recent review?

I you have time for that. Otherwise, i'll do my best and send you an update.

--Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 18:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll start on the article so you can see the standard usage. Chris Day 20:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Great. Thank you! --Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 20:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Contrast of box background colour and text

Chris, I did want the boxes on different sides, yes, and I prefer different colours. I suggest we let the person who does the box choose the colour, no? Eventually, there may need be a general discussion about layout, but it is a bit early to start imposing one now, isn't it? Martin Cohen 21:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

First, I think we can all have input on layout and I think it is important that there are some general standards that cross all articles otherwise readers get confused by the different styles. Second, what is the point of having different box colours? Third, many here don't want boxers at all, so it is never too early to be talking about layout issues. Chris Day 16:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, why do you think boxes alternating right and left is preferable? From my perspective it makes the article look chaotic. Chris Day 16:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Martin, in one edit you wrote "box colours - in general creator of box can choose colours - please do not impose your colours ! The aim is to have contrast". Is this not a little ironic given that one of my stated reason for changing the colours was "Why three different colours for the boxes? Using different colours implies there is some difference between the boxes. Also the two darker ones have poor contrast. Let's go with the lighter one." And a further edit I made to "make boxes less saturated" was also aimed at improving the visability of the text. I will also note that your current preferred colour has less contrast than the last one I changed it too. So I'm unclear why you think it has more contrast. Is this an monitor issue? Chris Day 17:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy Addendum


I have just been formatting the addendum subpage in Homeopathy. I know that no author is given but as an addendum subpage this text would be open to editing. Shouldn't this text be preserved, as published by the NCCAM, on a signed article page? Chris Day 23:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I agree. Editing could destroy NCCAM's report. Please do whatever necessary to prevent editing, excepting formating. Addendum sections, or better, the Talk page, could be used for commenting on it. --Anthony.Sebastian 01:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you plan to implement to signed article idea? I urge you to do so. We can't open NCCAM's report to editing -- except perhaps for formating by you and me. We could delete any reader edits, but that seems too much monitoring.
Thanks for putting all that effort in editing the NCCAM addendum. Thanks especially for tabularizing my table-image of Appendix I. Do you have a magic trick to make the conversion -- probably from the website table? If so, I'd love to learn it. I tabularized the table in Appendix II by 'view source', extracting the HTML code for the table, tweaking it in my sandbox, then copying it over. Looks a little different from yours.
BTW: Thanks for fixing my forum profile photo. Much appreciated. --Anthony.Sebastian 17:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

When you get a moment

Can you take a look at this discussion. The last two time (in the last month) Milton's articles were not on the list. Did something change a month ago that might have made a difference? I might be missing more articles. D. Matt Innis 13:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It might well be that I fumblefingered the approvals. I know I recommended approval for several; I'll have to go through my Watchlist or otherwise search to see which ones (insufficient coffee). It is Milton's birthday; I'd like to give him some approvals. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

html to wiki for tables

Chris, re your question of html to wiki, see: I coped the <table>...</table> code from the 'view page source' on right-click of the NCCAM webpage, then pasted it into the box that pops up at, clicked 'convert to MediaWiki'. Copied and pasted result in my sandbox at link above. Obviously only minor tweaking required for satisfactory table.

For author-created new tables, create with 'table' function in OpenOffice (mimics MS Word), the save, then export to MediaWiki. Gives you a txt file in MediaWiki code for pasting in the CZ editor. Free download: I used that technique to create the tables in

BTW: How do we prevent people from editing the NCCAM Signed Article? --Anthony.Sebastian 03:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy approval tasks

I think all the i's are dotted and t's crossed on homeopathy :-) The approval process says anyone with sysop ability can perform the approval tasks. As I am acting as an editor at this point, I should not perform the approval. I figure you know the process the best. Can you do it for us? D. Matt Innis 19:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Chris Day 19:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)