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:Louis F. Sander

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

[User bio is in User:Your Name]


Welcome

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

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

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

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


Kind Regards, Robert Tito |  Talk  14:04, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

please add workgroup category tags to articles

Please add workgroup category tags to articles -Tom Kelly (Talk) 01:17, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

ok, first check out http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Workgroups - which you can get to from the left navigation panel under 'workgroups.' check out the various workgroups that exist. I'll write more in a second. I made capital letters in my summary, please ignore, it is to get attention of other users -Tom Kelly (Talk) 01:26, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Thomas_E_Kelly#Copy_from_CZ:Notice_Board -Tom Kelly (Talk) 13:46, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Do you agree with Wikipedia credit? I don't...

Hi Louis, I like the growth in the number of military authors I see; the subject interests me, but I have little expertise in the field. I noticed at USS Rankin (AKA-103) that one of the other CZ authors added the "Article from Wikipedia" tag (checkmark on edit page, at the bottom). I have my doubts about this, and for the following reasons: 1.) The original is a modifed DANFS article, not a Wikipedia product. 2.) You did the work on the WP article, so any copyright is yours to change anyway. 3.) You have modified the article to your own liking on Citizendium and the "new" article is not modified WP, it is modified DANFS. 4.) I doubt very much that the person who added the WP tag had any idea of the WP article's history. 5) You clearly state that you use DANFS as reference, not Wikipedia.

The reason I write this is because I feel that it may be an issue that needs to be clarified, so that the right persons (yourself, in this case) and original citations (DANFS) should get credit, and that this is a matter which deserves discussion in the forums, specifically relating to these cases where an open source like DANFS is the original. I do not wish to make such a posting on the forums without gauging your opinion. Regards, Christo Muller (Talk) 17:24, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

I've put the issue to the forum at http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,718.0.html Christo Muller (Talk) 19:46, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the link

Thanks for bringing that opinion piece on writing about epilepsy to me. I agree with the writer, absolutely. I have a take on it that is not often expressed, though - it's not just about the writer, it is more importantly about the reader, and when it comes to topics like "Epilepsy" one of those readers is surely someone who just got the diagnosis, or the parent of someone that did. That's why it is so important to have accuracy, sensitivity and perspective in such articles, that's why it's more than just an annoyance to the expert to have an article, as he describes, ruined with passing edits, it removes that article as a reliable source of information.Instead of realizing the potential to spread enlightenment and education, it can spread instead rumor and speculation, and that is really a shame. I do hope we can do better, and thanks -again. Nancy Sculerati

Computers Workgroup

"Writing Experience: This includes about 500 articles, columns, programs and reviews for dozens of print publications, including local newspapers and computer magazines with worldwide circulation."

Good god man! The Computers Workgroup could use your help! Seriously that much experience writing articles should be put to good use :) --Eric M Gearhart 11:20, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

Images

Hi Lousi. Thanks for your contributions to CZ! Please do me a huge favor and review the images you recently uploaded. One or more lack licensing information. Please see Help:Images#Copyrights and kindly remedy this situation. Thanks! - Stephen Ewen 01:12, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Articles on CZ

Thanks for the great contributions you've made to the historical side of CZ, however please add the Article Checklist to the articles you've created, and also please add the appropriate category tags to the main article. The ship articles you've uploaded should probably be in [[Category:CZ Live]], [[Category:History Workgroup]] and [[Category:Military Workgroup]] --Eric M Gearhart 13:21, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Hey I replied over at Talk:USS Alamance (AKA-75) so you can see what I'm talking about. Looks pretty good though :-) --Eric M Gearhart 14:55, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
Since basically nothing links to these articles, I take it that they are Underlinked=Yes. Am I right?
These articles are my tiny contribution to military history; they're a LOT better than just the DANFS articles. I'd rather have them over here than in the other place, where any anonymous idiot can mess them up. Louis F. Sander 15:01, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
Yes exactly. underlinked = yes for now. Hopefully these articles get linked in to some battles and whatnot the ships participated in, in the future. And yes... they are well quite well written honestly :) --Eric M Gearhart 15:12, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
The ship articles do not normally belong in the History Workgroup. Unless they were historically very important like the Mayflower or Lusitania, the historians have nothing to say. Richard Jensen 08:11, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

Sorry

Hey I'm very sorry I must overlooked that. I only skimmed the section titles and thought they were the same. Please forgive me and I'll add the CZ Live label back. Thanks! Yi Zhe Wu 21:22, 16 April 2007 (CDT)

Images--how to document

Hi. We appreciate very much your contributions to the Citizendium. I was hoping you could help clear up a matter about the images you recently uploaded. They are lacking clear copyright and source data and need to have it as soon as practicable to avoid deletion. To fix the problem, please review the images you uploaded (click on "my contributions" at the upper-right to re-trace your steps or see the links I added) in light of Images Help—Copyrights. If you need additional help, just ask a constable or leave a message on my talk page and I'll be more than glad to assist. — Stephen Ewen 20:41, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

Ships

Hi Louis,

Just a quick note -- I understand (somewhat) why Richard doesn't want all the ships in the History workgroup - but they should have some sort of listing somewhere! Might it be possible for you to create an index page, "Naval Ships" or "Naval Ships of "xx" Class"? Then, if that page itself were tagged to the History group, and/or to other groups, the ship entries would not be entirely orphaned. Just an idea. Cheers, Russell Potter 17:38, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Image:Papua_new_guinea_northern_province.png

Hi Lou, sorry to have to do this. This image that you uploaded to here from Wikimedia Commons has the problem described here. You can try to contact the user on his Polish talk page here. He very probably can read some English but you can include this link in your message if not. Your goal in your message there could be to just get him to email you. His name will probably appear in his email to you, then you can ask him if it is alright to post it here with the image. In that case, you can post the email as documentation and it need to trace back to Wikimedia Commons. Let me know what you plan to do, because this image otherwise needs to be deleted. In point of fact, we have no real basis to know whether the image is as the user claims and a real name is the minimum requirement for authentication. Stephen Ewen 22:49, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

A perhaps better image, and one in the public domain from 1943 from U.S. Division of Ocean Science (OCE), is at http://images.nationmaster.com/images/motw/historical/engineers_v1_1947/new_guinea_airfields_1943.jpg There are many excellent free maps pf PPG at http://maps.nationmaster.com/country/pp/1 Stephen Ewen 17:56, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
That IS a great source of maps, and one that I did not know about. Thanks for the info. Their copyright page says that users can't copy their maps, however. Louis F. Sander 20:57, 1 May 2007 (CDT)
Their maps. That's the problem. I do not see any of their maps in their assembled work. I would thus question their claim on the page. Works of public domain maps may be subject to new copyright if incorporated "with some new maps".[1] Stephen Ewen 04:35, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

To make uploading images easier for you

Hi Lou. I wanted to give you a way to make images easier for you to upload. I hope it will be easier, anyway. You can copy and paste the following into every image you upload:

{{
Information
|Description= Here is where you describe the image itself.
|Source= The place you got the image, usually a website such as http://www.website.org
|Date= The date the photo was taken.
|Author= Who took the photo and/or who at one time held the copyright
|Permission= Add the license/copyright/permission data from the source data. Most of your images are public domain, so you'd just add {{PD|Old}}
|other_versions= None.
}}

Hope this helps.

Stephen Ewen 23:48, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Update: Special:Upload has been greatly improved. Stephen Ewen 14:13, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

Image

Lou, you should email to get permission to use Image:AnnCoulter01.jpg and upload it to Image talk:AnnCoulter01.jpg/Permission. Stephen Ewen 15:57, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Here is the info you need: http://anncoulter.com/contact.html. Once you get permission, which I'd expect would be straightforward to get, I'll undelete the image. - Stephen Ewen 22:18, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
I need to know what to ask for. It's probably documented somewhere, but I don't know where to look. Louis F. Sander 06:33, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
By the way, you might ask for a slightly higher resolution image than the one available at the site. Stephen Ewen 22:36, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
Good luck in getting the permission. As far as I know an unpleasant person like Coulter is unlikely to share copyrights in an encyclopedia that can be accessed freely ("that's socialism!"). :-) Yi Zhe Wu 22:54, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Re: WP Credit

Thanks for your message, I was about contacting you... I can understand your concern and, BTW, I was unaware of the forum discussion. I've read however the disclaimer you had left on the talk pages. It states that the starting version contains edits of some other wikipedians. And recently CZ was openly criticized for uncredited borrowings, even if it was "de minimus"; just one uncredited edit gives rise to suspicions and "nice" speculations (relevant links: the latest Wikipedia Signpost [2]+ author's talk, some actions to clear up the situation were taken on CZ approved articles [3] [4])...

All this, doesn't it motivate to recall our crediting strategy and take it seriously? Actually, as far as I am aware, we have been always assuming that one borrowed sentence/edit is enough to Credit WP, unless the author is able to declare that the version he "imported" is of his own. Definitely, I'm not the one who decides the status. If the person who brings the article declares the "full" authorship, it should be respected. The same can be read on the forum discussion I guess you mentioned (I found it on your talk). In the only straightforward response in the thread Zach says"If the copyright is entirely his or in the public domain, then he should be in the clear" (seconded by Stephen Ewen). The problem is that the disclaimer on talk page(s) seems to make clear that it is not the case. Do I really introduce inconsistencies by crediting WP? BTW, personally, I'd prefer that CZ contain CZ-originated articles only; but I respect any effort that has been done on WP. If this is not satisfying/convincing we could bring it again on forum (posing a more specific question). Aleksander Stos 16:19, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

PS. For consistency/inconsistency question see also Anthony's replay under your message on my talk.

Image:TomSaaty02.jpg

Lou, do you have an email from him so we can document the release? If you forward it to me I'll do the formatting and placement for you. Just go to my userpage for my email.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 13:30, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Draft article scheme

Hi Louis, we don't actually have a draft article scheme, but I have seen people debate the options and come up with different solutions. If you don't think anyone else will be editing the article while you are working on it, you can place the version you are working on under your user name such as Louis F. Sander/MyVersion. If you think others will be working on it, then that becomes a problem when you go to update (and then erase) their contributions. Ultimately in that case it might be better to work on the article itself, but you might also convince the others to work on your version because you are considering large changes. The most important thing is that the name that you call it does not end with the /draft as that is reserved for once an article has been approved and the working copy is moved to /draft. In this case, your version would be automatically erased. So you can rename it to anything that you like, just not /draft. If you think of anything that will work better, bring it up on the forums and we can all use the process. --Matt Innis (Talk) 10:42, 27 October 2007 (CDT)

Just to make sure ;-) --D. Matt Innis 20:31, 23 November 2007 (CST)

Health suggestion

Thanks for the idea; it's a very interesting suggestion, that I think could be covered to some extent by a new article perhaps on Medical cures or something like that. The costing is tough because it varies so much from country to country and even between hospitals, and cure rates of many treatments also vary greatly. But it would be interesting to do as you suggest for a few conditions as a case study in the cost benefit ratio. It'll take a fair bit of research though, - maybe I'll see if I can get a student interestedGareth Leng 05:17, 26 January 2008 (CST)

HERE/here

Hi Louis. Perhaps there's a way around it without having to revert to all caps. Not sure how to best do it, but IMO all caps looks pretty unpleasing to the eye, certainly when I looked at the article HERE stood out like a sore thumb, sorry :-( Perhaps you could underline it? User:Hendra I. Nurdin

Hendra: I underlined it, and it looks good on my browser, which does NOT show underlines on links. If yours DOES show links as underlined, maybe you could look at the word "here" and tell me what it looks like from your end. It is at Analytic_Hierarchy_Process#A_simple_example, a bit after after the words "including color photos." Let me know. Louis F. Sander 23:10, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
Lou, I can indeed see "here" underlined on my browser and that looks better than all caps. BTW, there is another "here" that should be underlined just three paragraphs (the one beginning with a boldface Additional information) below the current one. Hendra I. Nurdin 23:47, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

You can make tables with code if you want.....

Replace this text with caption, or remove it for no caption
Model 60K Tire Cost Brakes Cost Consumer Reports Special Note
Accord Sedan $700 1x +++  
Accord Hybrid $700 1x +++ Battery
Pilot SUV $1,400 2x +++
CR-V SUV $1,600 2x +++
Element SUV $1,300 2x ++
Odyssey Minivan $2,400 2x + Engine