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:D. Matt Innis/Archive 10

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

Contents

Article on TSCF edited

Matt, I have updated the article on The Social Capital Foundation, corrected links. Can you approve the new version. Thanks. Koen Demol 22:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Koen, good to see you! I can't actually approve an article; that requires an editor in the workgroup under which the article resides. Contact as many as you can and see if one will approve your changes and then my job is to actually update the version. Let me know if you can't get in touch with anyone. D. Matt Innis 03:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, well as you wish, but it's mainly about small updates (links). Koen Demol 14:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Matt, I submitted the update to Roger Lohmann who had edited the text, but there is no reaction on his side so far. Perhaps have you the possibility to contact him. Koen Demol 08:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't obtain any response, can you validate the changes please. Koen Demol 14:16, 4 May 2011 (CDT)

Cleaned up and ready for more

Oxytocin ready for approval

Matt, I updated the version number of Oxytocin after vetting Gareth's last minute edits. I believe you can approve it now. Thanks. —Anthony.Sebastian 21:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do, Anthony. I'll wait till I get home from work when I can stay focused. D. Matt Innis 21:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin

I want to know Matt why you have decided to correct Jimmy Page's birthdate in the Led Zeppelin, after refusing my request to do so a number of months ago citing "Only a music editor can correct it". This was over a series of emails I sent to you earlier this year. Meg Ireland 11:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I realized you were right. D. Matt Innis 12:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Appeal of block 1549

Hi Matt,

please take a look at CZ:Managing Editor/2010/3 - Appeal of block 1549 and comment in the Statement by the Chief Constable section as you see fit. Thank you!

--Daniel Mietchen 21:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Daniel. I have nothing to add publicly at this point. I believe it's part of my duty to keep behavior issues confidential (for a variety of reasons) until the MC or an Appeal Board directs me otherwise. D. Matt Innis 01:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I have tagged Template:Free space/Metadata for speedy deletion because it was a left-over after I renamed the "Free space" article to Free space (electromagnetism) as requested by our new physics author, John R. Brews, who created the article. Would you please do the deletion? Milton Beychok 18:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

New editors

Milton thought you might have an answer to this. Is there a page somewhere I could put on my watchlist that would notify me of the induction of new editors? Peter Jackson 14:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Approved version of Thylakoid should have been the current draft version

Matt, the version of Thylakoid you recently approved is an old version. It doesn't have the many edits I made in response to Chris Day's comments and suggestions, including new images, text, and references. I wouldn't have approved that version, only the current draft version.

Will you re-check? Anthony.Sebastian 03:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Anthony, since Chris did not add his name, I had to go with the version that Gareth approved. I assume he will probably approve the new version as well, but he needs to read it before I can put his name on it. Let me know when he does. If Chris doesn't return, I'll add your name as a second editor. D. Matt Innis 03:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, Matt. Still, I'd ask that the approval be revoked (or whatever the correct word) and the Approval Date be advanced for two weeks (from now), to give Chris a change to review the Draft version. I'm embarrassed to see that earlier version among the Approved Articles, and that version shouldn't represent CZ's best current effort.
Forgot to sign. Anthony.Sebastian 04:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, Anthony, I'll let Gareth take a look and see if he wants to update the version number. D. Matt Innis 13:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
You forgot to protect the page, Matt. --Peter Schmitt 23:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I did. D. Matt Innis 04:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Matt, on the Thylakoid Talk Page, Gareth said he'd be happy to update. Where does that leave us? I'm still concern about having that earlier version among CZ's Approved Articles. It doesn't deal with Chris's concerns, which the current draft does. Anthony.Sebastian 06:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
HI Anthony, I'm glad to report that I can now update to the new version (Gareth changed the approval date to the 10th so I had to wait a day!). D. Matt Innis 13:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay to confirm an account for a 14-year old? Can't find any guidance in the Charter.

Matt, is it okay to confirm a new account as an author for a 14-year old boy? Does the Charter discuss minimum age anywhere? Milton Beychok 23:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Until the MC decides differently, we approve as young as 13, but do not advertise the age (we only mention that they are in school). D. Matt Innis 01:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Bear in mind the following guidance from CZ:User pages:
Minors are asked not to include any personal information about themselves, nor about where they live, but they should still give some nonspecific information about their interests and education (no school names, please) --Chris Key 10:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Petroleum refining processes is in need of re-approval

Matt, the Petroleum refining processes article is badly in need of re-approval. For example, a completely new section, "Average refinery product yields" was added many months ago and there have been some other much smaller copy edits.

The article is in the Engineering and the Chemistry workgroups. The problem is that I have been the only active main-stream engineering editor for the past two years (to me, main-stream engineering does not include military engineering) and there is now only one chemistry editor (David Volk) and he is not always available. Is there anything that can be done to get that article re-approved?

According to the Google Analytics data recently added by Chris Key, that article is one that has attracted a great many visitor to CZ. Milton Beychok 22:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Milt, I won't get involved if you don't want -- I just saw this -- but may I observe my principal professional field is systems, software and network/electronics engineering, of which military and intelligence analysis is one aspect. There are aspects of military engineering where I would have no opinion. Assessing product yields, however, is a routine part of intelligence analysis for economics or targets. After all, how would someone decide to bomb your particular refinery? "Military engineers" are usually the guys that deal with minefields and bridges.  :-) Howard C. Berkowitz 14:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Howard, no slur was intended. There are quite literally dozens of engineering disciplines nowadays. However, to me, main stream engineering includes Mechanical, Electrical, Civil, Aeronautical and Chemical Engineering.
As for the re-approval of Petroleum refining processes, I would prefer that it be re-approved by some chemist or engineer who is very familiar with the refining of crude oil and I was hoping that Matt could help find such a CZ member. Milton Beychok 18:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Milt, I don't know of anyone, yet. D. Matt Innis 19:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

New user Claude BINEAU

Matt, I confirmed this new user with the last name all capitalized because that is how the name was written in the user's application. Is that okay? Or should I rename that user page as "Claude Bineau ? What do you suggest? Milton Beychok 18:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

All-capitals is custom in a French context, which we don't have here, so I'd think it's better to rename to English custom. --Daniel Mietchen 23:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
In a French context of *what*? I spent 25 years in Tahiti reading French stuff in various contexts and came across very few names entirely in CAPS. And most Frenchmen would write "C. Bineau" rather than Claude, I think. In any case, I think that to conform with CZ conventions, the name should be put into proper form. Hayford Peirce 00:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Definitely lower case. D. Matt Innis 01:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Using caps (or caps and small caps) for names is sometimes usual and useful (if handwritten, for instance), but there is nothing specifically French involved. There is no reason to make a name stand out like this. --Peter Schmitt 01:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Editorial Council intervention

I am sending you this request concerning the UFO article. I have also posted this request on the UFO talk page. MA

I am requesting Editorial Council intervention to disallow Howard from making any rulings concerning any technical matters in this article. Howard has established himself in the editorial role and allowing him to make technical rulings (or any other article rulings) would be a conflict of interest. I have also sent this request to the Chief Constable for review as I am not sure of the exact procedure concerning this request. The Chief Constable can refer this request to the appropriate channels. Thanks! Mary Ash 05:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

To clarify I would like Howard removed as editor from this article. He's established strong bias not only against well documented information but towards me personally. I would like his editorial role removed and another editor assigned. Mary Ash 05:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Mary, this is something that you need to bring to the Ombudsman who can facilitate your request through the system. You are correct that these are decisions that are not the concern of the constabulary. D. Matt Innis 12:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Applications

Matt, a couple of my Homeopathic colleagues applied to become authors/editors here, but none of their applications have been accepted yet. Can you check and tell me what the problem is/was?-Ramanand Jhingade 16:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Matt, the only homeopath that requested an author and editor account in the last month or so was Ramanand Jhingade himself ... which I rejected because he already had an account as an author and I had decided not to confirm any further editorships until the Editorial Council re-defined the requirements for editorship. In any event, in my opinion, the biography he submitted was almost identical to the one on his current user page ... and it did not convince me that he warranted an editorship. Milton Beychok 18:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ramanand, what were there names and I'll see if I can look back in the author request records to see what happened. I'll need them quickly because the list of rejected applications self-deletes after one month or so. Milt is right, there have been no editor acceptances of any kind since around November, but they may have been accepted as authors but didn't get their emails. It's hard to say without knowing their names. D. Matt Innis 00:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

When clusters should be subpages

Matt, Peter Jackson has (correctly in my view) suggested that Books of the Bible should actually be a subpage of Bible.

If I just move the cluster to Bible/Catalogs/Books of the Bible, will that work, or will it just mess things up. What effect, if any, would it have on the talk page and the history?

I think there are probably a good few articles like this, that predate the cluster system and/or the catalog subpage.

Knowing what to do and having that recorded somewhere would be a good idea, I think.

Aleta Curry 00:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Bible is a redirect to The Bible, and this only sort of "see also". But yes, I agree, Books of the Bible is a Catalog. Since there is not yet a Catalogs subpage it has to be created to list the (to be expected) several Catalogs. You can move the talk page with the page (it will then be available with the "Discussion" button of the Catalog. The history will be moved with the pages. --Peter Schmitt 01:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
So, Peter, it seems you are saying that the page Books of the Bible and its talk page should be "moved" to The Bible/Catalogs/Books of the Bible. Makes sense to me. D. Matt Innis 02:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you look at the massage article?

I've been cleaning this up. In particular, some of the therapies mention spinal work, etc., and compare and contrast with chiropractic. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You can review my ME talk page comments

Matt you can review my ME talk page comments. Thanks! Mary Ash 16:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note my comment at Talk:Owens Lake and take the action requested

Matt, please read my last comment at Talk:Owens Lake and take the action requested. This is urgent to avoid another distasteful event. Milton Beychok 20:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Matt, I can see that you are on CZ from your post at Talk:Monty Hall problem and I therefore assume that you have seen this post of mine about Talk:Owens Lake. I also assume that you have now received my email that includes copies of the emails to and from the U.S. EPA by me.
I don't quite understand why you have not yet responded or why you have not yet undone the entire set of additions made to the OwensLake article by Mary Ash at 11:04 PST this morning. Please explain.
Mary, has now agreed that she reported data that have now been acknowledged as being incorrect and misleading by the very man she named as being her source. She has also removed part of her revisions this morning. The other part of her revisions (which she did not remove) still includes the acknowledged incorrect 300,000 tons (see item 9) and that part is also a very extensive, exact word-for-word copy of the out-dated EPA source webpage ... which in itself is a no-no. Milton Beychok 22:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I did not state the information was incorrect or misleading. What I did state was the information was updated and based on that fact the information was removed. Also, the facts I stated should belong in the article as they are historical and they were backed by local, state and federal sources and they were correct for that time. I also prefaced the facts with the statement of some sources state...I also said I defer to the editors at Citizendium as they are editors for a reason. Mary Ash 23:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Mary, the fact remains, no matter how convolutely you deny it, that you added content to an article which has been proven to be incorrect and misleading by the very man you quoted as your source. And the fact remains that you have not yet deleted the word-for-word copy of the EPA article that you also added this morning and which still contains the incorrect 300,000 tons (see item 9) as well as other outdated material. Trying to include incorrect data because historically they were once considered as correct is about as convoluted as it can be. That is absolutely nonsense. When will you ever learn to just admit a mistake and then move on?
Of course, you can be excused as having added that data because you did not know that it was incorrect until I sent you my copies of the emails to and from the EPA. But it is inexcusable for you not to remove every single word of your additions made to the Owens Lake article at 11:04 AM PST this morning. Milton Beychok 23:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Matt, I still don't understand why you have not yet responded. Milton Beychok 23:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Milt, I have just returned from work (I was on earlier, but have to work during the day) and have just read your email and just responded to the orange notice that there are messages on my talk page. I am not impressed with the tone of this talk page so far and am moving to the Owens LAke talk page now. D. Matt Innis 00:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Matt, I truly regret that you are not impressed with the tone of this letter. I regret even more that I have already spent 5-6 hours on this today when I have other important work to do. I have no apologies to offer on anything I wrote on any talk pages today. Regards and thanks, Milton Beychok 01:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Milt, I apologize. I read more into your comment than you wrote. What I am not impressed with is that this appears to be an honest error, yet the urgency made it sound as if you were distressed. When I reread, I see that you were only informing me and wandering why I hadn't responded. I have responded now and hope that the article can move forward. D. Matt Innis 01:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Howard's comment

I'll have to mention that I, too, am disturbed by the Constable Comment on the talk page. There is a behavioral problem here, and it's not Milt's. Now, there is every precedent for an environmentally related article to be in Engineering, Subgroup Environmental Engineering. I am truly tired — and I'm not speculating on motivations but on posts — the constant defensiveness and complaining that the Constabulary tolerates. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
"Calmly start over" is not going to work when there is a chronic problem. You can't continue to sweep it under the rug and say it's equally everyone's fault. How is it that I can have complete articles blanked, but it's naughty naughty when someone says feelings are hurt and it isn't what volunteers do? Howard C. Berkowitz 01:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems that you have a problem with my actions. While I would like to respond, it is not my intention to become part of the problem and ask that you bring your complaints to the appropriate authority. D. Matt Innis 01:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

JDAM

I left this message on the discussion page: As best as I can tell no merge was done with this article as there is absolutely nothing left of what I wrote. Granted the article ended up being a dupe as there was an existing article with the wrong name leading to this mix-up. I am filing a complaint as a merge was not done instead, without explanation, almost everything, if not everything, was arbitrarily and capriciously removed. BTW the photo of the JDAM was correct as verified by my husband who is a mechanical engineer with some experience in this field.Mary Ash 01:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mary, the purpose of the merge is to get the histories of both articles at the same place. That was performed by me, so the histories should be all in the same place. It is up to the authors (and editors) to make teh necessary content edits to restore whatever parts that you want. That's not something a constable can do, particularly when there is continued discussion. D. Matt Innis 02:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Matt! Who is supposed to do the merging? The editor or the author? Just curious... Mary Ash 03:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The people that are authoring the page will have to do the merging of content. Do pay attention to any "rulings" that an eidtor may have made. I think Howard has something about a picture that you are not supposed to be using. D. Matt Innis 03:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Howard reverted the edits I made. I left almost (I'd say about 95% of what he wrote) in the article. He's now reverted those edits. I have sent another email to the EC for review. Mary Ash 04:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that the Managing Editor may be a better starting place, although I do question if Editor guidance is being taken. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

JMW

Matt, I'd like to see my talk page with the latest at the top although I understand most folks like it at the bottom. There appears to be no option to set it so as is done on "My contributions". Easy? Not easy to configure? Joel M. Williams 19:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A couple of years ago, with Martin Cohen didn't we have endless fights about this? He insisted, as I recall, that he wanted stuff at the top, but he also was wont to add his comments into the *middle* of other Talk pages. Whatever it was, I recall vaguely that he aggravated enough people before he was banned that someone or other (Larry?) decreed that new comments *had* to go to the bottom of the page rather than the top, simply to prevent confusion among the Citizens. Am I wrong about this? (I sure hope I *am* wrong about this: couldn't the Editorial Council make a ruling about this if they were asked to? It involves "content", after all....) Hayford Peirce 20:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
If Joel is referring to his own talk page, I'd interpret the current guidance as allowing him to format as he likes. To the best of my knowledge, however, there's no automatic way to make the + tab go to the top. Article talk pages, however, are bottom-only. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree; Hasn't the Management Council ruled that we're editors of our own Talk pages? Surely we allow this (whether it's possible I wouldn't know). Martin Cohen was banned for very substantial other reasons than this.Gareth Leng 20:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's been agreed (or decided) that one's own talk page is one's own. And I sure *hope* that Article talk pages are bottom down! As for Martin, I know -- I was just remembering that he was doing a *ton* of things that aggravated people, none of which actually got him banned, though.... To my mind, it was sort of like the Feds finally putting Al Capone away for income tax violations.... Hayford Peirce 20:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe the final straw was posting an email, something that still irritates me although the ban couldn't have happened to someone more deserving.
  • Capone's First Law: A .38 beats four aces
  • Capone's Second Law: You can get more done with a smile and a gun than with a smile alone.
Howard C. Berkowitz 20:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, he vanished on Jan. 7th, which is my birthday, so Larry was obviously thinking of me! Hayford Peirce 20:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow! Did not know I would open Pandora's box. I'll just do with what I've got until a change is otherwise deemed necessary.Joel M. Williams 21:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Aw, we're just babblin', I think. Hayford Peirce 22:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I reversed my talk page to reflect what I had/have in mind.Joel M. Williams 03:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I know. You did it as I was writing you a note and threw me for a loop :D D. Matt Innis 03:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Does this get added to the top?

Just checking to see if things get automatically added to the top of the page. D. Matt Innis 21:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I presume you did a "+" and it was put at the bottom as is the current practice. Some one could have added it to the top (as I did) or anywhere else in the list by editing YOUR whole talk page rather than using the "+" feature.Joel M. Williams 22:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep, that's what I did :) I'm not sure I can retrain people to use my talk page differently... I'll see how it works out for you first, haha! D. Matt Innis 00:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Since this seems to be the only thing going on at CZ tonight, I'm going to chime in. I think you will have a hard time trying to retrain everyone to write at the top instead of the bottom. It's kinda like trying to teach us westerners to write from right to left. Still, I agree that it is logical and wish you best of luck in doing so. I recall an old USENET saying:
Top posting!
What's the most annoying thing on USENET?
Good night! Johan A. Förberg 00:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
All seems a moot point if Key is the person who actually does any changes (posted to JMW's talk: I certainly won't be spending any time on changing it, or even allowing the option to change it. --Chris Key 20:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)). Just seemed like a logical option for each author to be able to designate how their own page worked (in "My preferences"). Oh well, I have made my point here and on my own talk page. Interesting to test how CZ works. You'll note I chose to indent my comment to the same level as I first entered the commenting. Seemed the most logical as does bottom-posting on an opened subject. Guess I'll go work on something else. Joel M. Williams 00:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
BTW, Matt, I have deleted my "top entry" of a subject on this YOUR talk page. Back to normal. Joel M. Williams 00:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the information http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Section#Editing_before_the_first_section can be used. If you have a link on top of your user page people may happen to see and use it. --Peter Schmitt 01:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Remit

Matt: Please contact me concerning a remit from the EC. Nick Gardner 08:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

About nominating HUBO

Matt, I would like to join the nomination of HUBO for approval ... but I made some minor reformatting changes to 5 or 6 of the notes (references). Does that disqualify me from being one of the nominators? The original nominator (User:Andrew Alexander Wallace) made no edits of the article at all and he would be all that is needed for a one-editor nomination. I just want to join him as a co-nominator. Please let me know if I can do so. Milton Beychok 18:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


Motion 2011-014 passed by the Management Council

Matt, this is to inform you of Motion 2011-014 passed by the MC on March 15, 2011 ( see [1] ), which reads:

The MC shall instruct the Chief Constable to unblock David Finn on a probationary basis until the MC has established an appeals process and is ready to consider his appeal. By probationary, it is meant that the Chief Constable may re-activate the block if David Finn's subsequent behavior makes that necessary again.

The MC shall inform the Chief Constable that the reasons for the probationary unblocking of David Finn are: (a) the MC has been remiss in not yet having considered David Finn's appeal against having been blocked, (b) the MC has not yet established an appeals process and (c) that it may yet be another month or more before the MC has an established appeals process.

The MC shall also instruct the Chief Constable to inform David Finn of the above reasons for removing his block on a probationary basis.

Please take the steps as instructed in that motion. Thanks, Milton Beychok 20:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Will do that now. D. Matt Innis 23:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Done. D. Matt Innis 00:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Financial Report as of March 15, 2011

Please read our Financial Report as of March 15, 2001 for complete details on our financial history and our current financial situation. If you have any questions, please ask them on CZ Talk:Donate.Milton Beychok 19:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Say hello to new editor in Classics, Literature and Philosophy workgroups

Hi, Matt:

We have a new editor, Maria Cuervo, in the Classics, Literature and Philosophy workgroups. Please post a welcome on her Talk page. Thanks, - Milton Beychok 04:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Note from Charles Marean, Jr

I would like the grammar and composition article I spent a lot of time writing, Object (things), put back. Someone who was being rude to me deleted the article, being rude by saying "we" do not have articles like that. The article is the summary of the textbook I'm reading for this project. It is a good article. Furthermore, the person accused me of not writing the article I moved from wikinfo, which I did in fact spend weeks writing last year. Working on wiki projects is something to do, which is not supposed to include receiving criticism, accusations for other harassment, which is of course illegal and I am of course thinking of suing Wikipedia out of business for what happened over there. If someone does not like my writing, they have no right picking on me about it, and it is only their opinion. If I write an article, I like it. Thank you very much for considering my point of view.--Charles Marean, Jr 08:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, I won't be writing much because this site has one too many critics and is therefore not worth my time.--Charles Marean, Jr 16:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Charles, I'll take a look. From what I've seen so far, it seems that it's mostly a matter of communication style. Citizendium does have some different qualities from other wikis with which you might need to familiarize yourself. I think mostly others are trying to point you in the right direction before you get in too deep and have too much to clean up. Take a quick look at our charter and it might help you understand the way how things work. D. Matt Innis 16:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
While checking my spelling, I just discovered won't and wont have just about opposite meanings, a difference which I think is not nice.--Charles Marean, Jr 16:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I never thought about that! That makes it very important not to mix those two up. It would change the meaning of everything you wrote! D. Matt Innis 16:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Charles, as I already replied to you on my talk page, I only informed you -- a newcomer -- about some rules and habits existing on CZ. One thing you have to be aware of is that criticism happens quite often here. Your article was not deleted, and I could not have deleted it even I should have wanted to. Moreover, I never said that you did not write the article on the San Francisco earthquake. I only told you that, according a Regulation of the Editorial Council, its importation is only allowed under very specific conditions that are not yet all fulfilled. --Peter Schmitt 09:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Moves to user space

Matt, you have forgotten the redirect on talk page of Talk:Objects (things) -- you should delete it, too. (And the pages Nouns and number and Names (words) are of the same type as the moved one.) --Peter Schmitt 12:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Change to Thomas Simmons's Profile page

Hi Matt,

Was wondering why you altered my profile page.Thomas Simmons 03:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Thomas, I was cleaning up the personnel list and the constable list. D. Matt Innis 10:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Matt, Anton has responded by saying he did not know of any such action removing me from the Constabulary. The Constables page lists only a history up to Sept 2007 as well and there have been others whose names should appear in the history. Is someone removing the history as well as appointed Constables? This is a little confusing. Can you straighten this out? Thomas Simmons 22:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thomas, I thought you knew. The MC decides about constables. Once the new charter went into effect, they decided on constables. See the history of their decisions. Anton and I were appointed and I was made Chief Constable. They made Ruth Chief Constable Emeritus but did not give her Sysop rights. You're not on the list either. D. Matt Innis 23:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
All right. Just so we are clear. Bruce and Anton did not know what happened either. I went through the constabulary email and found nothing. Anyway. cleared up now. Thomas Simmons 23:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please move inadequate stub from article namespace to user space.

Matt, the content of the Vacuum cleaner article in the Engineering Workgroup is completely inadequate even as a stub. Please remove it from the Engineering workgroup and move it into the user space of the original author ... perhaps as sandbox of some sort. Thanks. - Milton Beychok 23:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I spotted this first, so I'll go ahead and move it. Matt will probably have something less pleasant and simple to do the next time he logs in :-) Bruce M. Tindall 00:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Always nice to come to work and find my work is done :) D. Matt Innis 00:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you should have moved (not deleted) the talk page, too. Why did you copy the page, Bruce? Moving would have kept the history. And as Constable you should be able to avoid leaving a redirect. --Peter Schmitt 00:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I moved the article. There wasn't much of a history in this case, but, yes, we should move instead of delete. Concerning talk pages. It didn't seem apprpriate to place other peoples critical comments in a user's space that hadn't asked for them. That's why I deleted the first talk page. I can see how someone might want to see that there was a conversation about moving or deleting an article, but that is on his user takk page as well. D. Matt Innis 01:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Another reason in favour of moving instead of copying/deleting: Moved pages stay in the person's list of contributions, deleted one's disappear. --Peter Schmitt 08:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
You're right. I will be moving the talk pages as well from now on. D. Matt Innis 12:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

My articles

I disagree with deleting “Objects (things)” and my other English grammar and composition articles, as well as my article, “Vacuum cleaner.” I was following the main policy, CZ:Quick Start, which says the first thing I should do is start articles and do so via the “Start article” link to the left. I have no idea what User:Bruce M. Tindall is looking for in an article, but it is obviously not the same as CZ:Quick Start. If a freelance editor can be an editor here, then so should I be also. I got my bachelor’s degree in Biology in 1983. In light of the introductory directions here (as well as Wikipedia), I see no grounds for anyone targeting me. CZ:Quick Start does not say the articles need to be long or polished. However, I’ve decided I will not post my notes of that Grammar book here. If I continue reading that book, and if I post my notes online, I’ll put them somewhere that has advertising and me in total charge of what I write. If I feel like writing a long article, maybe I’ll submit it here. It seems I keep finding these wiki projects years after they need my help. Vacuum cleaner is ready to be an article, in my opinion. I wonder if some college professors talk against each other the way people were attacking my edits on Wikipedia. There was nothing wrong with the quality of my edits there or here. Well, I don’t have any “long article” ideas at this time, so good bye for now. If you need funding, I suggest you ask the government, which is perfectly capable of coining the money. I can not afford to subscribe Britannica Online or Scholastic, so obviously I can not afford to help a wiki monetarily. I’m not sure what the word “bandwidth” means but I will not use this site as a place to put my reading notes.--Charles Marean, Jr 20:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Charles, I understand your frustration. I think you have to realize that this wiki is for creating complete articles. Yes, all articles have to start small and grow into a complete work with the help of others, but that is different than just taking notes from one book and placing them on a page. For a work to begin to take the form of an article, generally it will have a variety of sources about the subject. You seem to be doing more of a book report rather than an article on a particular subject that includes several references from different perspectives. I hope that helps. Please understand that is not the kind of place where you can leave your notes, but you are always welcome to help work toward building neutral articles. D. Matt Innis 23:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

About cancelling Approval of HUBO

Matt, the original creator and by far the major contributor to HUBO was Chunbum Park. At his request, I extended the final Approval date three times, the last date being April 15th which is tomorrow. A few hours ago, Chunbum asked to have the Approval cancelled because the corrections he expected to receive from a specific person had not been received as promised.

So I cancelled the Approval as he requested. If that was wrong of me, then please redo my cancellation. Also, the green banner on my watchlist that lists HUBO as an Approval candidate needs de-listing of HUBO. Thanks, Milton Beychok 01:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Milt, you are certainly the one to remove the template. You're fine. Also, I don't see the HUBO article on the green template anymore. Maybe it's a cache thing and it will be gone tomorrow? D. Matt Innis 01:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

HUBO due for Approval today

Matt, I just updated the version to be approved ... and today is the day for final approval. I will post this on Bruce Tindall's Talk page as well. Milton Beychok 17:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Alcmaeon

Hi Matt. I can be an editor for approving Alcmaeon. - Robert Badgett 01:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Requesting help seeking approval of Alcmaeon

Matt, will you put up the "Nominated for Approval" banner for Alcmaeon. I've emailed History Editor Russell Jones, and Health Sciences Editors Gareth Leng and Robert Badgett, asking them to see if merits nomination for approval.

Robert responded on article's Talk page: "Great article". In email response to me he said he'd tell you to include him as a nominator. So I think you can put up the banner with Robert as nominator.

Gareth's looked at article and made a few copy edits. I do not know if he's contacted you. If not, he may put in his name once the banner's up.

Haven't heard from Russell yet.

Thanks. Anthony.Sebastian 15:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me know if I did this right

I tried to learn how to do a REDIRECT tonight using the link at the bottom of the page in edit mode. Here's the link: [[2]] I wasn't trying to mess anything up just trying to learn. My doc says this is what I have and it's not going away....Sigh... Mary Ash 03:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice try! The best thing to do, though, was to "move" the page and the redirect will be automatically made for you. The advantage to "moving" the page is that you bring the edit "history" with your article, whereas just copy and paste does not. I've gone ahead and merged the two histories for you, so now you can see all of your edits to both pages. D. Matt Innis 11:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Matt. Let me know how to move something and I will. Thanks too for helping me out as always much appreciated. Mary Ash 22:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
No problem. If you go to the top of a page (next to the 'history' tab) there should be a 'move' tab. When you click it, it will ask you what the new name should be. Once you fill that in, check the boxes to move the subpages and talk pages (assuming you want to). I'm thinking that you are supposed to move the metadata page first, though. That way you won't have to worry about finding the old metadata to delete it. I'm not sure if they have changed the procedure or not, but either way, you'll have to make a new metadata page. If that is not quite right, someone will come by and get it straightened out. D. Matt Innis 00:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Two things, please

Matt, there is an applicant (with a confirmed email address) named Ebenezer Robinson awaiting confirmation of his authorship. If his bio is factually true, then he might be able to help us in our endeavors to become a non-profit entity. Please confirm him as soon as possible.

Also, I have requested speedy deletion of Nuclear weapon, FAT MAN for the reasons explained in the speedydeletion template. Would you please take care of that as well? Thanks, Milton Beychok 23:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Two things, please

Matt, there is an applicant (with a confirmed email address) named Ebenezer Robinson awaiting confirmation of his authorship. If his bio is factually true, then he might be able to help us in our endeavors to become a non-profit entity. Please confirm him as soon as possible.

Also, I have requested speedy deletion of Nuclear weapon, FAT MAN for the reasons explained in the speedydeletion template. Would you please take care of that as well? Thanks, Milton Beychok 23:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Milt, I deleted the article and have contacted Ebenzer Robinson, but since he applied with a free account, I'll have to wait until he gives me some more information... I'll get him signed up ASAP. D. Matt Innis 03:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Matt. Milton Beychok 04:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes to article Set theory

Hi Matt: I am told by Milt that you have the authority to change an approved article provided you find the proposed changes are minor. Please look at these changes to determine whether you think the changes are in that category. The main changes are: (i) addition of a Venn diagram figure (ii) removal of capital letters from headers to be consistent with first letter capitalization and (iii) spelling out of technical acronyms likely to be unknown to a non-specialized reader like ZF, NBG, and NF, in headers. In addition, I've added a link to the article Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms where a complete listing can be found, and additional references. A general source also has been added as a footnote in an added Reference section.

The UK spellings have been converted to American spellings - that might be a source of contention. I don't see much objection to the other changes. John R. Brews 02:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi John. I see that the article was started by an American English speaker, so the American English changes are appropriate. The image and acronym changes are content related so they will need an okay by the approving editors (or another one). You might try contacting each of them. D. Matt Innis 03:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
The acronyms in the headers are identified in the text, so there is no content related issue here: it is simply a matter of avoiding the acronym in the header. I can remove the diagram if you like. John R. Brews 04:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I started the article (or at least rewrote it from scratch in its current form) and am a British English speaker, but I don't particularly care what dialect is used. I'd suggest the headings from which abbreviations have been removed should have them in brackets, eg 'Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZF)', reflecting the fact that the name of this theory used among mathematicians really does seem to be ZF, which isn't taken as an abbreviation. (By the way in BrE we wouldn't call this an acronym unless you can pronounce it :-) The Venn diagram is a good idea but I would strongly ask that both circles be complete in all three versions. As it stands in the union and set-difference diagrams it looks as if X is partially obscured behind Y, leaving it unclear at first glance (especially in the latter) exactly what the operation does. Mark Wainwright 17:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in Mark. I have to go with the first author, Howard C. Berkowitz, technically, but you restarted the article and would certainly have good grounds to make the case for BE option to the editors if you like. You're argument concerning acronyms is also viable. I'll wait to see the results of discussion including others before making any more changes, though. D. Matt Innis 20:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure, if you remove the image, the rest should be fine. If one of the editors has an issue with the acronyms, we'll respect their wishes and just revert it. Feel free to continue to work the draft and work with the editors, or a new editor, to improve the article content (including adding the image). D. Matt Innis 16:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

←{undent} Matt, thank you for implementing some of the proposed changes. The reference used the CZ: List-defined references format, and so its deletion has introduced an error in red ink at the bottom of the page. That can be fixed by removing the References section. Or, perhaps you did that but forgot to remove the footnote in the text?

The source: Thomas J Jech (1978). “Chapter 1: Axiomatic set theory”, Set theory. Academic Press, pp. 1 ff. ISBN 0123819504.  is general in nature, and I have placed it on the bibliography subpage; I hope that seems acceptable. The author is a very well known contributor to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and the author of several monographs on the subject of set theory. I have also corrected the pre-existant reference to Halmos.

I also copied [3] to this article's External links page. Again, hope that is OK.

Thank you again. John R. Brews 14:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

John, the Related Articles, Bibliography and External Links subpages are not "locked" when an article is approved. They are available for editing. Milton Beychok 16:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, John, I don't have the authority to make content and style changes (which includes the reference list inclusion). That falls under the editorial purview, so I left that out as well. As you noted, I missed the ref in the body and have subsequently removed it. D. Matt Innis 20:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Mechanics issue with XML redirect

Matt, we attempted to redirect Talk:XML and XML and a couple pages are stuck, and the redirect doesn't work automatically until someone with the ability to delete the old pages can drop by and unstick the matter. When you get time, could you take a look? Thanks in advance! On an unrelated topic, I see you are from Charlotte, and I have two good friends (one a physician) who've lived there for many years. Do you know David Weinrib or Liz Wahls by any chance? I understand Charlotte is a lovely place!Pat Palmer 14:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pat, I deleted Talk:XML and the template on XML. It now redirects to Extensible Markup Language. Is that what was needed?
Neither name rings a bell. Do you hae any idea what area of town that they live in? Some neighbors I only know by first name, so they could be neighbors and I wouldn't know it! D. Matt Innis 01:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that was just what was needed. My friends live on Woody Grove Ln.Pat Palmer 14:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Great! No, that's too nice a section of town for me! But, I'll keep my eyes and ears open if I have a chance to meet them. D. Matt Innis 14:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we now remove the July Write-a-Thon banner?

The July Write-a-Thon is now finished. Can you please remove the banner from the CZ pages now? Milton Beychok 04:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's strange, Milt. I did that about 3 hours ago. Does it still show for you? D. Matt Innis 04:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Now its gone. Thanks, Milton Beychok 05:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, good. Must be the cache phenomenon again. D. Matt Innis 12:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for name change

Matt, I'd like to change my user name from 'Johan A. Förberg' to just 'Johan Förberg'. Is this possible, and do you have the necessary privileges on the wiki? Thanks! Johan A. Förberg 15:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Consider this carefully, m'boy! Did Robert A. Heinlein strip away his A? Would anyone remember John D. MacDonald, the creator of Travis McGee, without the D? Hayford Peirce 16:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
The use of middle names or middle initials is far less common in Europe than in America. --Peter Schmitt 19:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
True, I think. But we have the noted Brits A.J.P. Taylor and P.G. Wodehouse. Not quite the same, admittedly.... Hayford Peirce 20:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Hayford: I've never been particularily fond of the 'A'... But then again, I'd be terrible as a writer of fiction. Maybe I should instead insist you pronounce all my names, hoping that at least one of them will stick in memory? :)
Matt: Thank you. Johan Förberg 20:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that I can probably remember (and even say) Yo-hahn, hehe. I have a close friend who just visited for a while whose full name is Filipo Aimone Joseph Dominique Monteleoni. Lippo for short. Hayford Peirce 22:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It's more like "jo" as in "Houston" and "han" as in "antler". The h is sort of silent. In case you must know... :) Johan Förberg 17:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hew-ahn? Hayford Peirce 18:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I suspect Euston would be more what he means. Peter Jackson 15:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

How long do we wait for applicants to confirm their email before they are put on hold or rejected?

Matt, I note that the queue for authorship applicants has 9 applications pending until the applicant confirms his/her email address. But 6 of those 9 have been pending since November and December of 2010 ... over 6 months.

May I suggest that if an applicant has not confirmed his/her email address within 1 month, that the application be rejected completely?

May I also suggest that if an applicant has confirmed his /her email address but has been put on "Hold" because he/she has been asked for more information and has not responded within 1 month after being out on hold, the the application be rejected completely?

The situation with so many applications on a pending status for as long as 6 months is untenable ... we really should limit the waiting periods.

How do we go about revising the software to limit the two waiting periods to 1 month before the applications are automatically rejected? Milton Beychok 04:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Milt, as you suggest, the software decides when these people are dropped from the list. The registration package was put together by our technical crew in the background. I agree the timings are much too long. I personally can't remember anyone that confirmed much more than a day or two after the first email. I'm pretty sure this is an issue that the MC can take on themselves. I might also suggest that we consider loosening the entire process to make registration easier at the same time. D. Matt Innis 03:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that the waiting periods could be drastically reduced to one week or even less if applicants are informed about these deadlines from the beginning and are told that they can repeat the process if there answer should come too late. --Peter Schmitt 10:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Matt, do we really need to go thru the MC for this? The MC is very busy. Why don't you just ask Dan to go ahead and change the software? I really don't care if we set the limit at 1 month or 1 week ... I leave that up to you.Milton Beychok 18:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi Matt, can I put a text from my website on my user page and not have problems regarding copyright? Sincerely--Dimitri Parant 16:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC) ????? --Dimitri Parant 20:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Dimitri, I missed this one! Of course it depends on whether the information that you place on your user page is yours to place there. If it's your's, there shouldn't be a problem with copyright. D. Matt Innis 20:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thank you!--Dimitri Parant 15:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal publicity

I would like to create an article about the afterimage in painting. Am I allowed to mention my name in this article and a link to my website and not be accused of self-promotion ?--Dimitri Parant 18:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dimitri, welcome! Glad to see your ready to start working. Concerning adding your name immediately to an article, I wouldn't right off the bat. Someone else can, but you shouldn't. If it were me, I'd start the article about the subject then discuss why your contribution to the field is worthy of inclusion in the article on the talk page. If someone agrees with you, your problem is solved. You can look at our CZ:Policy on Self-Promotion to see how to handle it. D. Matt Innis 20:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
By the way, Dimitri, I forgot to mention to you (and to make everyone aware) that you applied as an author AND an editor. As you noticed, I can only accept you as an author. You must apply to the CZ:Editorial Council (at this point) to have your application for editorship reviewed. D. Matt Innis 20:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

...for the people who are still alive.

Yeah, something like that. I'm pretty busy these days with... varied interests. It's hard to maintain much these days. Robert W King 04:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Revising the registration page

Citizendium's Registration page is what all new Citizens see first. Sadly, the information given there is a bit dated, and the presentation leaves a bit to wish for. For instance:

  • The part about nicknames is simply not true. Many respected Citizens use what may be seen as nicknames: Ro Thorpe, Matt Innis, even Larry Sanger... etc.
  • There is no mention of the Charter, which has replaced the Fundamental Statement thing as the main description of our shared values.
  • It is too long.
  • There are stylistic flaws, quite uncharacteristic of the recent regulations written by the Councils. Double !! exclamation marks, whole sentences written in SHOUTING ALL CAPS... We can do better.

(It just occured to me that you may be one of the authors of this document :) Well...)

Now, since the page lives in the Special: namespace, I can't edit it. I assume you can? I'd be happy to send you my proposed changes if you will agree to evaluate them. Johan Förberg 23:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the initiative, Johan - we really need to improve that page, and perhaps the renovation may trigger some useful suggestions on how to streamline the registration procedures. --Daniel Mietchen 23:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Johan (and Daniel), I didn't write the registration page; it was actually written by Larry and Alex Stos or Anton Sweeney, I think. I don't have those kind of skills. I do think that I can edit the page, though, so I am all for making changes that will streamline and simplify the registration process and remove some of the blocks that make registration harder (such as choosing workgroups). I'm not sure whether we have to get permission to make changes, but if we do, we should be able to get it through - no-one likes the page. D. Matt Innis 12:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Take it to the MC. It would seem to me that they would have jurisdiction over such things. Jones 16:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Jones: I don't think running this through the MC will be necessary. I'm not proposing to change the registration policy. In fact, I want to re-write the page so that it agrees better with current policy & practice. Johan Förberg 18:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, it might still be prudent to ask the MC for approval before the proposed changes are committed to the page. Johan Förberg 18:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Matt: I'll get to it then. The working draft will be located at User:Johan Förberg/RequestAccount. I'm afraid I can't promise anything about when it will be done. If someone else wants to jump in and improve it as well, that would be great. Johan Förberg 18:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Matt, I seem to be unable to even view the source of that page. Can you? If so, could you please access it for me, and perhaps even copy-paste it to User:Johan Förberg/RequestAccount? There is some rather advanced markup there which might be difficult to recreate. Johan Förberg 18:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My second name

Hi Matt, looking for my name in the list of chemical authors, I saw, that I was listet under 'k'. Please note, that my first name ist 'Andreas' and my second name 'Pingel -Keuth'. Maybe something special for germany. No one from germany would find me under 'k' ;-) --Andreas Pingel -Keuth 09:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it is "something special for germany". Hyphenated names aren't uncommon here in Britain, but I've never heard of anyone who has a space before the hyphen.
It is also in germany written without a space and I didn't wrote one, but the system here createted one. --Andreas Pingel -Keuth 05:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Alphabetization practice varies. Safest would be to list such names twice.
Related point. Does the system have provision for people whose surname isn't their last name?
  1. Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese and Hungarians (others?) put surname first
  2. Most Spanish and Portuguese speakers use their penultimate name as surname.
And what about people without surnames: Icelanders, Burmese ...?
Peter Jackson 10:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Peter, I think the default sort can be changed for any combination, but the system is going to pull from the name that is placed last in the registration. D. Matt Innis 17:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Matt, why not ask Andreas if the space between Pingel and the hyphen are really needed or was it simply a typo? If the space is not needed, then the system would pick his last name as Pingel-Keuth, would it not? Milton Beychok 19:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
As I wrote before, the space was generated by the editor, system - whatever, I write it without. --Andreas Pingel -Keuth 05:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Milt, I did ask him on his talk page and am waiting for his response. D. Matt Innis 20:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Approval Manager

Matt, please rename User:Approvals Manager to User:Approval Manager, according EC:R-2011-027. --Peter Schmitt 01:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, the user will have to sign in using the new account name. D. Matt Innis 01:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Randomized controlled trial/Draft

Hi, Matt. What's the situation with re-approval of Randomized controlled trial/Draft? It looks like everything has been more or less in place and ready to go for about a month but the article is still listed. --Joe Quick 17:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for approving my request. --Tito Dutta 17:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Please remove my access to the Editorial Personnel Administrator page

Matt, altho I resigned as an EPA some weeks ago by notifying Hayford, I still have access to the EPA special site. That means I still get notified of Editorial applicants. Can you please close down my access to the EPA site, so that I will no longer get those notifications? Milton Beychok 19:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Has the issue of finding a successor for Milt already been solved? --Daniel Mietchen 20:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I *think* Joe Quick said that he would be willing to do it, but I don't know if the EC has formalized this or not. I'll have to check. Hayford Peirce 20:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Calls for Constables

Hi Matt, please check Category:Call for Constables. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 20:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Got 'em. I haven't checked Call for Constables - Hayford always did that one! Thanks for the heads up. D. Matt Innis 01:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Howard's vacancy

I'll let you know very shortly whether it's for 3 months or 15 months. Hayford Peirce 19:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Okidoki. I'll be waiting patiently to hear. I won't eat, sleep, or imbibe in alcoholic beverages until I hear back from you :) D. Matt Innis 19:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
We have general, though informal, consensus that the vacated term should be the 15-month one. Go ahead and make the necessary changes and I will notify Dan officially. Hayford Peirce 00:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Bud! D. Matt Innis 03:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Approval bar

Matt, could you change the last template in Mediawiki:Recentchangestext from

{{Greenapprovalbar}}

to

{{Box.green|{{:User:Approval Manager/Current}}}}

This adapts the announcement on "Recent pages" by announcement according the new approval process. --Peter Schmitt 00:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Nominations banner

Hi Matt:

Who is responsible for replacing the nominations banner with an election and ballot template? September 24'th has past. Maybe everyone is elected by acclamation, there being no contest? John R. Brews 12:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Sorry for the delay, busy real life, but will keep up! D. Matt Innis 19:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Article deletion: can literally any article survive on CZ today?

Matt: I posted the following notice at the relevant workgroup categories looking for an editor to suggest deletion:

Deletion request
As per Talk:Applied Consciousness Sciences#This article should be deleted the article Applied Consciousness Sciences should be deleted as falling into the category of Essays or advocacy.

There has been no response. I suspect that there are no editors active in the Education or Psychology workgroups interested in looking into such matters.

Is it to be CZ policy that in its present state any article can be posted? John R. Brews 15:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

CZ is too small to function in some regards — like when we need editors' participation. (Chunbum Park 16:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC))
As you certainly know, John, CZ has only few active Editors, but even if there were more of them, putting a remark on a Workgroup talk page would probably stay unnoticed.
(1) In obvious cases, deletion of articles can be requested with the well-known speedy-deletion template (see Article_Deletion_Policy). Speedy deletion is, of course, not applicable in this case.
(2) In cases where content questions are involved, (naturally) a simple request is not sufficient. As announced recently (see the forum (and repeated in answer to one of your posts) there is now a procedure to nominate articles for removal.
--Peter Schmitt 18:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Peter: Having failed to find a discussion of procedure, I simply have placed {{subst:remove|~~~~}} at the top of the pages for Applied Consciousness Sciences, a suggestion I found in your Forum comment of Sept. 21. John R. Brews 18:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

(undent) John, Your question seems rhetorical as the process seems to be working as intended. I saw the discussion and I also noticed that Daniel Meitchen, a Psychology editor, did make a comment that deletion would be the best way to manage the article. However, I wait until the speedydelete request is placed by an editor. I can only assume that Daniel has reason not to do this, yet. Keep in mind that a healthy discussion with rationale shoud be visible. And, yes, any article can be started, but no, they must pass the editorial process to survive.D. Matt Innis 21:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, I've removed the {{subst:remove|~~~~}} template from the article page and left it on the talk page. There is not much, if any, experience with the template and I'm not sure that the EC intended it to be on the article page. Let me know, though, if this is not the case. Regardless, we do need some instructions on the use of the template. D. Matt Innis 21:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Peter seems to be aware of discussion regarding the template {{subst:remove|~~~~}}, but I could not locate it. As you may notice, I haven't a clue about the "newly announced procedure to nominate articles for removal" John R. Brews 22:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Hehe, as you can see, I don't either! I'm sure he'll fill us in soon. D. Matt Innis 22:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see that he has fixed his link above: see here. D. Matt Innis 22:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

How to apply to become an editor

Hi, I've just join Citizendium, I've been a wiki editor since 2006, I love the concept of articles created of human knowledge for future generations. I've found I enjoy finding refs and creating articles, though my writing needs a good copy editor. What I would like to know is how to apply to become an editor. The field I'm an expert in is tree shaping, there are only about 20 practitioners in the world at the moment and 3 of those are dead. So this is not a field that has degrees or certificates. My partner and I were the featured artists at the world expo 2005 in Japan. We have peer reviews and I can show these. We have been in media around the world, T.V, newspaper, magazines and books. Please have a look at www.pooktre.com (our display site) and www.treeshapers.net. I created the 2nd site to help record the history of this art form. I would be interested in creating an article about tree shaping in general and then later articles about some of the more notable shapers. Any suggestions would be great. Becky Northey 13:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome, Becky.. You need not be a (CZ) Editor to write ("edit") articles. Being an Editor is a special role meaning more than being a specialist in some field. Your expertise in treeshaping will be recognised even if you are not appointed as Editor. --Peter Schmitt 14:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops...

I just confirmed an account for User:Mercurio_cavaldi but didn't notice that the last name doesn't have a capital letter. I dunno how to fix that now... -Joe Quick 02:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I got it. We use a feature called 'Renameuser'. It moves all the contributions and account information to the new page. D. Matt Innis 12:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Matt. I'll note that down for myself somewhere. -Joe Quick 18:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Just remember to ask me and I'll do it for you! D. Matt Innis 18:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Titles in capitals

Matt, as you already noticed, our new Citizen Mercurio has started articles in all-caps and now copied (not moved) the text to their correct title. Could you merge the histories? (If not, then the incorrect articles should be deleted.) --Peter Schmitt 23:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Peter, I think I'll just delete these as they don't have much history. I was waiting, though, because I am hoping that the author will learn to add a speedydelete template. Are we still using that template, or are we using something different? D. Matt Innis 03:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Mr. Cavaldi also happens to be the president of Fondazione Foucault, about which he has been writing. I haven't found the time to explain our policy on this. -Joe Quick 18:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I am sure he'll understand. D. Matt Innis 18:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
If he's connected with the Foundation about which he is writing, then this falls under the Constabulary -- at least, when I was a cop, I ran into a couple of instances like this and told the writer that he couldn't do it. And I blanked the pages, or deleted, or something. In other words, this is NOT something that the EC needs to get involved with for the moment -- it's a clear violation of our rules. And the rules say that the article can be deleted. Hayford Peirce 18:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
If someone writes about his own institution (or his own work) then that alone is not a problem. CZ wants experts, doesn't it? It all depends on how the article is written. As long as it is matter-of-fact and can be checked and verified there is no harm. (With CZ's real name policy this is more honest when asking someelse to contribute them for him.)
This was not the case with the "Applied Consciousness Sciences" and we will have to see how the Fondazione Foucault articles turn out. At the moment, they are inadequate mainly because of their format. --Peter Schmitt 19:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Peter on this. At this point it's a content issue that should be able to be managed by the community. The right attitude with the right discussion will result in the right article and a better citizen. The alternative is losing both. The constabulary will react to behavior issues, and is not proactive when it comes to content. D. Matt Innis 13:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

(Unindent) Regretfully, someone is Unclear on the Concept here, and I fear that it is Peter and Matt. If I myself, say, work for IBM, or teach at Harvard, then I think that I am permitted to begin, and write, an article about either one. If, however, I am the sole proprietor of Hayford Peirce Publishing Inc., or the owner and headmaster of Hayford Peirce School for Tiny Tots, then I don't believe I can begin articles about them and contribute to them. I would be indulging in "self-promotion". And, unless the rules were changed at some point and I've forgotten it, self-promotion is one of those things which can have a speedy delete slapped onto them or can even be deleted by the Constabulary on their own initiative. Isn't it clear that this Foundation article is clearly self-promotion? If so, then it should be deleted. If not, then it should be rewritten so that it is clear to people investigating the article that it is NOT self-promotion. Hayford Peirce 19:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

(a) Whether an article constitutes self-promotion or not is a content question. Therefore it has to be treated as such. The situation was different before the Charter -- without an EC: someone had to act in certain cases.
(b) "Self-promotion" has two parts: "self" and "promotion". If Hayford Peirce should write about Hayford Peirce Publishing Inc. then, of course, it were natural to suspect self-promotion. However, if H.P. is a sensible person he may avoid promotion and contribute the basic facts of a legitimate entry (or even a balanced article) such that only the "self" but not the "promotion" is true. It would be, of course, up to all Citizens -- especially its Editors and the EC -- to judge the result and, in addition, to decide if an article is justified at all.
(c) H.P. might avoid the "self" and ask another Citizen (e.g., Peter Schmitt) to place his article (written by H.P.) on CZ. This shows that the "self" part is not a reasonable criterion on which to reject an article.
(d) In the current case, the articles make rather plain statements (hardly "promotional"), and only for one (on the Fondazione) the "self" is true. However, a quick Internet research seems to indicate that the content of all four articles is highly questionable. I have therefore opened a Removal case. If the author does not provide sources that support his statements then they will have to be removed as dubious and promotional.
(e) It is clear that the articles have to be thoroughly revised -- if they are kept. However, it makes no sense to invest effort before this is decided.
--Peter Schmitt 23:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Justin Yang

Hello Mr. D. Matt Innis. Please ban him. (Chunbum Park 19:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC))

And is Joe Quick the one who approves new accounts? We should reject applicants with vague biography limited to their interests and what they like, if they can't provide more definitive info about what job they have, or what college they go or went to, etc. Thank you. (Chunbum Park 19:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC))
I doubt his account was hacked. He says "keylogged" on his account, suggesting someone stole his account. I doubt this because his edits are bot-like copy-paste of Wikipedia articles, and other accounts that have been around longer haven't been "keylogged" yet. (Chunbum Park 19:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC))
I agree. These articles are spam or vandalism. The user should be blocked and all contributions be deleted. If he should be innocent he may re-register. --Peter Schmitt 23:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a Justin Yang on the internet who appears genuine but even the original bio provided no actual details of who the registered user was, even before it was reduced to seven words and then replaced with the keylogger claim. But I wonder why a vandal would both copying articles which are mostly biology-related, though, (as opposed to just random articles) especially since no-one outside the project would notice them. It could be that Justin is real, has been copying articles himself without knowing about the policy on Wikipedia imports, and his account really has been compromised.
I notified the Constabulary and copied Dan in for good measure within fifteen minutes of the vandal edit being made, but 11 hours on no action yet and one more article has been created. Not blaming anyone for that, just thinking that it illustrates how we're a small project. John Stephenson 02:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The account has been blocked. Thanks for the help! I could use another constable ;-) I won't have a chance to review the articles that he posted, so take a look and let me know if there is more that I should do. D. Matt Innis 02:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

History of number theory

See my comments on the article's talk page. Harald Helfgott 14:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Workgroups

Hey Matt, sorry for not answering over on the Forums but I had already stopped commenting there - I think the Forums are for talking about building the encyclopedia, but here is where we'll do the building, and I'm a building kind of person.

I appreciate your offer of help. John has been sending notices to many inactive Citizens encouraging them back and within his message are Citizen-specific links to their contributions and recent changes to do with their workgroups. Here is the latest, to Myrna Watanabe, a Biology Editor.

I don't know her reasons for inactivity, but in general there are many possible reasons, many of which we have heard in the past. In any event if she were to pop in and have a look it would be nice for her to find something positive happening when she clicks on the links John has provided.

When I click on the link for recent changes in Biology I see that John Brews and Anthony are making a lot of edits, as are the Eduzendium people, so that is a good start - it already looks busy.

From there there is a link to the Biology workgroup - the first thing I notice is that there is no talkpage. Not a real big deal, but at the same time if anyone has a general comment or query about Biology or editing Biology articles or wanted help they either have to go through the list of active Editors or place their comment or query on the talkpage, so having a talkpage with a welcome message would be good I think.

So the Workgroup has activity and there is somewhere to go to discuss it (once we have that talkpage) - maybe the next question is how easy is it to navigate the Biology content we already have? There are links on the workgroup page to various cleanup lists - if you look through some of the entries you will find articles with no subpages, which means no talkpage, no definition and often no categories. Sometimes you find articles with no subpages template on the main page but with one on the talkpage - that means the reader cannot see the subpages from the main article, even though a bibliography or external links page might exist.

Just looking through the regular articles there are a lot of Wikipedia imports that still have the external links and bibliography on the main page (although that happens a lot more with History) and that is a good opportunity to make use of subpages. Subpages are good I think, especially as they allow in some cases adding info without having to editorialise it, like adding a timeline or a catalog. You know we haven't done so well writing this encyclopedia one article at a time, but that isn't really all we need. We also need many hands to do the work associated with having this much content. Everything helps, but there is more to it I think.

If you spot an article that you could ask a reasonable question about, put it on the talkpage of the workgroup. Or leave a note saying you fixed some problem with an article, could anyone check? Maybe a passing inactive Editor might feel inspired to help you out.

The other thing is that we have three really active Editors in Biology, so getting an answer might not be so hard, but either way the activity on the Workgroup might get some attention from others. We could also try identifying bigger problems and asking for workgroup help - for example the current EC motion about renaming history articles will ultimately require someone to implement it. Who better than the History workgroup to help with that? If the EC make a decision about it what say we all become History workgroup members for a day and make it happen, and post our progress on the workgroup page, maybe leave a message or two here and there to ask for help?

Maybe Johns messages will reach some, and we can use the workgroups to show them some encouragement. If not maybe we could consider sending out some emails? But first we need that activity to show them its worth being here. A lot has changed about CZ and many of the criticisms are no longer valid, but one that is valid is that there isn't much happening. If we can change that one, and some people come back to take a look, maybe they will see how much has changed and think about staying.

One specific thing you could help me with - some of the chiropractic articles seem to have lost their workgroup. What should I categorise them under? David Finn 13:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That's quite a list! I've found the Biology talk page. The page that you have linked for the Biology Workgroup is the Category Biology workgroup. Here is a discussion page for [4].
From what I understand, the Chiropractic articles are probably supposed to go under the Health Sciences Workgroup, but I am not clear on this. There is likely some reluctance to place some of the Healing Arts articles under the Health Sciences category, but as far as I can tell, that's where the EC has placed it.
I have to work in spurts, but I'll jump in. D. Matt Innis 02:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
It is quite a list, isn't it. Take a look at our Recent Changes page though -
Citizens, consider this your home page!
You can track the most recent changes on the wiki here. Look in on what others are doing, and help them out. Look at Workgroups for links to recent changes lists for particular workgroups. For instance, you can see what work has been done in chemistry. If you're not a Citizen yet, you can join us!
So I look at the link for Chemistry - not much happening there, less on the workgroup (which is linked to if you find yourself at chemistry recent changes by clicking the main recent changes notice). If I look at the active Editors list I find three, one of which has already officially left the project. The Chemistry workgroup isn't perhaps the best example to use for the sitenotice that appears on our recent changes page. I've tried to make a couple chemistry edits and will do so on a regular basis for as long as the sitenotice remains this way, but you can see how a prospective Citizen could be put off joining when they find the difference between how CZ describes itself and the reality of CZ being so different.
Changing all our literature and help pages to eliminate the workgroups seems like a backward step - and CZ won't grow without them. It seems better to use them than throw them away. Still, it might be a good idea to rotate the workgroup that is linked to from the sitenotice, or pick a more active workgroup to advertise to potential recruits. David Finn 10:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Did I miss something?

Did I miss something or is my user page still locked? The talk page is OK. Thanks! Mary Ash 00:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope, my bad, I unblocked but forgot to unlock! Sorry about that. Welcome back, by the way. D. Matt Innis 00:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Mary Ash 01:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me know if this is considered advertising

Matt I updated my page resume and included my Kindle cookbook info as I am the editor and publisher of the Kindle cookbook found at Amazon. Would this be considered advertising? Thanks! Mary Ash 15:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No more so than this...Jones 16:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Haha, can't argue with common sense! Looksl ike your in the clear, Mary. D. Matt Innis 20:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring my account!

Matt I was able to log into my account and all is well. I also noticed you added me to Visual Arts and Religion. That is great! Maria Cuervo

Hi Maria, glad you made it in! I wish I could take credit, but it just finally worked by itself! Good luck and Have Fun. D. Matt Innis 22:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Matt, Since systems can be quirky (I used to be a computer programmer), just thought you should know that I did a google search and found a reset password page. It was not the same 'page' that I had used a week ago when I was trying to get in and it said I was not a user in the system. This would indicate that there may be more than one page involved, maybe a legacy page - I don't know. Maria Cuervo 01:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. Maybe Dan Nessett and the bug people should be told about this? Hayford Peirce 01:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Maria, do you think you can find me that page again? We did have a pilot project many years ago, maybe that was part of the problem. D. Matt Innis 04:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for helping and guiding

Dear Matt, thank you very much for supports. Reza Baqeri

Reza, no problem! Happy editing! D. Matt Innis 23:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party

I have volunteered on the 1776 Tea Party talk page to research, write and edit it. If you like, please move the article to my Sandbox and I will work on it. Thanks! Mary Ash 19:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Randomized controlled trial: Cluster needs to be repaired

Matt, caused by a typo during approval mechanics, Randomized controlled trial has two draft pages: Randomized controlled trial/Draft and Randomized controlled trial/draft. I think this is best repaired by merging the initial revisions (/draft) under the later ones (/Draft), and making the "first" talk page (/draft) Archive 1. --Peter Schmitt 01:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Good catch! I'll do that now. Keep an eye on the results for me. D. Matt Innis 02:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I had to jiggle the talk page to get the edits to show, then copy and paste the /draft talk to the archive. The history is on the main talk page since I didn't 'move' it to that page. I didn't jiggle the Draft version itself because I can't tell if it has the changes in it or not. The history shows, but I can't tell if the article is showing the changes, yet. D. Matt Innis 03:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
[[5]] needs fixing, too. It points to the /draft version.
(It does not matter, but I would have moved the /draft talk directly to the Archive. I prefer archive moves over archive copies because it leaves the history with the content. I didn't do it myself because I thought that you would suppress the redirect when moving.) --Peter Schmitt 11:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look at [[6]].
I go back and forth on whether the history should be with the talk page or the archive. It works fine if you are moving the whole page, but once the talk page gets longer, it is impossible (I think) to archive just parts of the talk page with its history. So, in essence, if we start by moving the history, and then have to cut and paste the next section, everything gets messed up. D. Matt Innis 14:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Wish to 'move' Alcmaeon to Alcmaeon of Croton

Matt, numerous 'Alcmaeons' exist in Greek history and mythology, so I want to move Alcmaeon to Alcmaeon of Croton. I cannot find the page with explicit instructions to do so. Will you direct me to it. I've done one or two moves successfully in the past, but memory fades.

I will create any necessary disambiguation and redirect pages.

Thanks. Anthony.Sebastian 22:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect moves

User:Jaume Cañellas Galindo has moved -- with the intention to create a nickname! -- his user page in two steps to a subpage in mainspace. This needs correction and deletion of the redirects. --Peter Schmitt 17:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Got it, Thanks, Peter. D. Matt Innis 18:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Constable assistance

Requesting Constable assistance concerning [7] as it seems the list was returned repeating the same information I so neatly edited into a coherent format. I thought using lists or a "string of pearls" format was not accepted at CZ. Also, the information is now repeated twice in the article. Mary Ash 23:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Approval bar on watch list

Milt noticed that the watchlist shows the "old" approval bar instead of the new one shown on "Recent changes". Could you make the same changes to Mediawiki:Watchlist-details as describet above in #Approval bar? Since I do not use my watchlist I was not aware that it shows this, too. --Peter Schmitt 23:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Got it! D. Matt Innis 00:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Need completion of Approval Mechanics for Randomized controlled trial

Matt, we need completion of Approval Mechanics for Randomized controlled trial, as Feb 20 was set for end-of-review. I have certified the article for approval. Thanks. Anthony.Sebastian 22:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Once I certify an article for approval, who do I contact to complete the mechanics? Anthony.Sebastian 16:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I think I can do it. I'm sure someone will let me know if not! D. Matt Innis 17:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

ASIMO now certified for approval

Matt, will you complete the approval mechanics for ASIMO. I certified it for approval. Thanks. Anthony.Sebastian 17:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Moved material

Nick has followed my suggestion to move the material I wrote in House of Lords#History to a new article, History of the House of Lords. Unfortunately he's unthinkingly done so in a way that makes it looks as though he wrote it all himself. I'm not sure whether he changed it at all. What's the procedure here? Would you delete the article and then recreate it with a more informative edit summary? Or just delete it and leave it to me to recreate? Or what? Peter Jackson 18:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Peter, Nick made the change according to procedure as far as I can tell. I am not aware of any method of moving any portion of an article to a new page and manage to bring the history with it. However, you bring up a good point that needs some examination; certainly there should be a link to the original page, but maybe the "history" of a subject should also be a subpage of the original with a link to the history of the original article? I'll be glad to work any of the solutions that are decided upon. D. Matt Innis 15:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, what happened doesn't comply with the licence. I suppose, as a legal matter, it's for the MC to look at. Peter Jackson 09:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Boiling point/Draft certified for approval; ready to replace current Main Article

Matt, I certified Boiling point/Draft for approval to replace the currently approved Main Article. Will you mak the replacement. Thanks. —Anthony.Sebastian 20:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Matt, this regards your last post at Talk:Boiling point/Draft about the Approval mechanics. There is no active Editor in the Physics group. There is only one active Editor in the Chemistry and Engineering group ... that is me and I was the main writer of the article. So there is no single, non-participating Editor available. Likewise, there are no three non-participating Editors available either. Milton Beychok 16:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that. I'm thinking that we should at least put the editor's name on the template along with the Approval Manager. As it is now, when a reader clicks on the green template to find out who the editor is, it goes to Anthony's user page. D. Matt Innis 17:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
What editor's name? I'm the only active one available for those 3 workgroups and and I wrote the article. Milton Beychok 17:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC
Yes, in this case, your name. D. Matt Innis 17:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Only if that is the only way forward and it is clearly understood that I did not suggest using my name. Milton Beychok 22:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The template is not quite adapted to the new process. (But modifying the subpages template is tricky). The mechanics is still in "experimental" stage. For the time being, I would say that the template should identify the Approval Manager, and point to the /Approval subpage where the reviews can be found -- this is much more informative then the isolated name of an Editor. --Peter Schmitt 01:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
However, the current template only allows a link to the Approval Manager page. --Peter Schmitt 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
It is probably simplest (and best?) to have an "Approved" template. I'll think about it. --Peter Schmitt 01:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) So is the re-approval of Boiling point/Draft, certified by Anthony, now in limbo? For how long? Milton Beychok 18:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "in limbo", Milt? The re-approval has been finalized by Anthony, and the draft is waiting to be moved over to the main page by a Constable. This does not depend on when (and if) the current template is revised or replaced. --Peter Schmitt 01:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Peter, what I meant by limbo is that the final approval mechanics have not yet been implemented because of the confusion that arose as explained in our exchange of emails (i.e., between Anthony, Matt,yourself and myself). Milton Beychok 03:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
EC:R-2011-027 makes the remark: It is important to note that Approval Managers themselves do not Approve articles by passing their own subjective judgments upon the merits of the articles, rather, they are assuring that Approval is carried out according to the established rules. It is not clear to me whether the "established rules" are those that are at CZ:Approval Process (which requires one non-participating or three workgroup editors) or whether "established rules" have changed to allow the Approval Manager to declare an article content "approved". Either way, it seems that there should be a workgroup editor's name in the Approval template so the reader can judge the source of the content themselves. As it is now, the Approval Manager would be the only name in the Approval template. D. Matt Innis 04:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Matt, if Milton's name goes on the Approval template, there would be, as you say, "a workgroup Editor's name in the Approval template". Milton would not be the sole judge of content quality, as I judged the content, too, not as Approval Manager, but as Anthony.Sebastian, a chemistry author and frequent contributor to Chemistry articles. Anthony.Sebastian 04:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that is the case, Anthony, and I think this is the minimal solution (at least have a workgroup editor in the template). It is a change of our "established rules" since there is only one "participating" editor (something that CZ:Approval Process does not allow) and it does seem to be lowering the bar (is that what the EC intended?). If that is the case, then we need to change CZ:Approval Process to include "one participating editor and the Approval Manager." D. Matt Innis 13:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Let's see if EC will allow that change in CZ:Approval Process, in particular, when none of the relevant workgroups have fewer than ten, say, active Editors. Anthony.Sebastian 21:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

(unindent)
The new Approval process has replaced the "established rules" but it is not "lowering the bar"! It has changed the purely formal rules ("count the Editors and look at the Workgroups") by a more thorough topic-related review process: Editors have to give written statements and their competence is not judged by the (often much too wide) Workgroups (that may, in addition, sometimes be only loosely connected with the subject under review) alone. Moreover, the special competence of the article's author(s) may also be taken into consideration. It is the Approval Manager's responsibility to make the final judgement based on the referee's reports, taking into account what is known about their competence and trustworthyness. Thus an article is approved when an Approval Manager has certified its Approval (but is not approved by the AM). --Peter Schmitt 00:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, Peter. I haven't seen the page with the "more thorough topic-related review process." That should be the page linked in the Approval Template for the reader to access. I'll wait for Anthony to change the date on the template to include the two additional edits. It would be nice if the EC could update the CZ:Approval Process so that it falls in line with the new rules and change the Approved Template. D. Matt Innis 02:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
"The page" is the EC decision. I have added a section to CZ:Approval process, referring to this. But simply changing the template is not possible because it would affect all existing approved pages. --Peter Schmitt 11:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Matt, once either Anthony or you has changed the the approval version and date (which I hope will be today), would you please complete the mechanics of updating the Main article so that it is the same as the Draft? Then the rules and template can be considered and discussed at length until resolved. Milton Beychok 18:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Matt and Anthony. We finally got it done!! I hope that I wasn't too impatient. Milton Beychok 04:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Wait up - are we, once again, having to justify ourselves to the "Chief Constable" before he will do his job? Matt, you have your orders, you don't get a say in how they are carried out, you are not on the EC, and if you don't like it then, rather than further delay the work of the other officials, you can lodge a complaint. David Finn 06:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason to be aggressive, David. The process is new and we we all have to get acquainted with it and to make it work smoothly.
Yes, Boiling point/Draft is ready to be protected -- all conditions have been fulfilled. But this step may be delayed (for various reasons) -- this happened with the old process, too. And since now a diagram has been added, Anthony should be given the opportunity to update the version to be approved. --Peter Schmitt 20:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)