User talk:Milton Beychok/Archive 10

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


Thanks!

I moved the exlinks to the exlink page and corrected the bad link. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm sure if I did the exlinks right so please check. I used the * to do the line breaks. Is that what you do here?

Thanks! Mary Ash 05:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Mary Ash

Mary, you used the * correctly on the Related Links subpage ... but I had to correct the format of the hyperlinks to online websites. One does not simply write [url]. Instead, the url is followed by single space and then a title for that website item. For example, [http://adage.com/century/icon04.html] was corrected to this [http://adage.com/century/icon04.html Betty Crocker] which then displays simply as Betty Crocker.
Also, once again, you do not need to sign your name after the four tildes because the tildes sign your name for you and the result is that your name appears twice in your signature (just look at your above signature). Please remember, all you do is sign with four tildes.Milton Beychok 06:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about the tildes. I will refrain from signing. I am used to do doing it that way so it will take a bit of rethinking. :-) I also followed your lead on the exlinks if you check the newest addition. Thanks for your help.
Mary Ash 14:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo

This what I posted on my talk page. Lighten up fellas. The name I submitted sure looked like a REAL name to me and let it go at that. It is a lovely photo that I used on my wikiHow account and decided to move over here. The photo came from Flickr and I liked it. Do YOU make time to share anything positive here, or are are you all sitting around waiting to "pounce" on the newbies? I did add the hyperlink showing where the image was found so anyone could search it out. Finally, I did some research and indeed this is a dying wiki. I wonder why... Mary Ash 16:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Serving

Thanks for serving our country in her time of need. Hubby was in similar circumstances except it was Vietnam. Mary Ash 23:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for approving my application, and for the suggestion to expand my bio. I am currently working on this as my first editorial duty :). Thank you again, and I look forward to many happy hours working on this great compendium! Rachael Cantrell 18:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo Attribution

This morning, after feeling so much better, I realized why I was doing this. Any work done for hire and any work paid for by the US Government, or by an employee of the US Government, is considered work for hire or public domain. See: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf Attribution automatically goes to the agency that paid for the work and since we all paid for the federal government photo it's considered public domain. That means the Mack article and the Osprey article were correctly attributed by me. It would be best to change the current attributions to the Harvard Press Office and US Government for those photos as they are now incorrect. It is nice to credit the photographer, if known, but the correct and presumably legal attribution goes to the agencies involved. I fulfilled my ethical and professional responsibility by notifying Citizendium of their error. Mary Ash 15:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If you will look at the photo of Mack that you uploaded, the photo itself has attribution to Harvard Press at the bottom (in very small print). As for the the V-22 Osprey photo you uploaded, the current credit line (which I added as required by CZ) has both the U.S. Navy (which is the government agency) and their photographer's name (who took the photo). So all is well. Thanks for your comment and concern. Milton Beychok 17:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
If you check the file history for the Osprey the attribution is incorrect. Credit goes to the U.S. Government not the author as it is public domain and work for hire photo. See: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Image%3AOsprey.png&diff=100693841&oldid=100693698 Mary Ash 18:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. James Darcy is in fact the author of the work and legally entitled to attribution. If you check the copyright line (Template:Osprey.png/credit) you will see that both are credited. --Chris Key 18:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Petroleum naphtha

It's Approved! Thanks for the reminder ;) D. Matt Innis 18:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

How to archive talk pages

Looks terrific, Milt! A lot of tedious work. I've always done it by trial and error and simply copying previous ones. I'll try to find your new instructions the next time I do one! Thanks! Hayford Peirce 19:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Secure confident people encourage not discourage

(This comment was moved to Archive 9 of this Talk page)

Image:Russian Blue kitten.jpg

Hi Milt. You requested that Image:Russian Blue kitten.jpg be deleted. Flor de Azur is the name of the Company that produced the photos [1] and holds the copyright. We have plenty of other photos with an 'unknown' author, and as long as the copyright holder is given we always seem to be okay with this. Are you sure it should be deleted? --Chris Key 09:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris, before I requested speedy deletion, I spent about 30 minutes surfing that company's website (including their photo gallery) and could not find that specific photo of a kitten ... so it is hard for me to convince myself that the company is truly the copyright owner of that particular photo.
Meanwhile, I emailed Franziska Gabriela Waldmann, presumably the copyright owner of the original photo (Russian_Blue_001.gif) to confirm that she is the copyright owner and that she agrees to our using the photo and crediting her as the copyright owner. If she agrees, then I was going to re-instate that photo for use with the Russian Blue article. (P.S.: I asked Mary to send the email on the article's talk page and she did not respond. Instead, she uploaded the photo of the kitten.)
As for the photo of the kitten, I suggest that you email Flor de Azur and confirm that they are indeed the copyright owners. When I send such emails (and I have done so with many photos that I uploaded), I insert a copy of the photo in my email. If they confirm that the photo is theirs, then I would have no objections to letting it remain uploaded. If they do not confirm or state that they don't want us to use it, then I would like to see it deleted as I requested.
Chris, I have uploaded about 270 images and the above procedure is that which I have imposed upon myself before I upload pictures from Wikimedia Commons. Whenever a company has not responded to my requests for permission or has responded negatively, I did not upload the image. If you like, I could send you a copy of my "form letter" that I use.
See CZ:Introduction to CZ for Wikipedians#Images and also CZ:Media Assets Workgroup/Example permission request letters. These are what guided me when I first joined CZ. Milton Beychok 11:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I am happy to go with your judgement on this. I have deleted the photo and left a note on Mary's talk page asking her to obtain permission before re-uploading it. --Chris Key 18:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Help:Index/Map

I think it would be best to direct people to Help:Index rather than Help:Index/Map. The former has been developed to be easy to use, especially for new starters, and the latter is linked to from the main Help:Index page. --Chris Key 20:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. To be candid, I believe that Help:index/Map provides a better overall view of all the help articles than does Help:Index. I assume you were referring to my welcome message for Nicole Willson. In the future, I will try to remember to point newcomers to both. Milton Beychok 21:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
As I said in the forum, I also prefer the index map -- there it is much easier to search for the topic needed. But others may think differently. We shall see what becomes more popular. And we certainly can have both. --Peter Schmitt 23:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Explosives article

Milt, would you take a preliminary look at explosives and think about what it might need to move to Approval? Certainly, there are some chemical engineering aspects, although specialized ones. Still, this article is about the explosives themselves, and to some extent their detonation systems, not about weapons, commercial blasting, etc.

Do note that the Related Articles section is extensive and has many lemma articles.

Let me know if I could help find reviewers in any areas. Would it be useful to expand the operations in the well-known process of nitroglycerine manufacturing, as an example? Howard C. Berkowitz 19:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will see if I can help with Explosives but it may be 1 or 2 days from now, if that is okay. Milton Beychok 20:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. What application did you use to clean up the thermobaric diagram? Howard C. Berkowitz 16:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
When I used the "camera" tool in Gallegos's pdf, I got the same dark background that you did and could not change it to a white background. However, when I used the "copy" tool, I got a white background. Then I moved it into the Microsoft Paint program (comes with Windows) and cleaned it up in that program. Milton Beychok 16:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I just made some more, final, minor copy edits to explosives should you care to update the version for approval again. David E. Volk 18:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The little chemistry in the article is fine, but I don't really know any of the military jargon to approve the article. So, I am leaning against co-nomination unless you really need me to. David E. Volk 18:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Deepak Mahaan

Hi Milt, I deleted the moved account for Deepak from DEEPAK and renamed him instead. This allows for his contributions to show up under Deepak Mahaan and his user name to show up as Deepak Mahaan instead of DEEPAK MAHAAN. I was able to reconstruct his user credentials, but was unsure what workgroups you granted editorships. Could you take a look and add the categories (or let me know which ones they are and I will do it for you. Thanks in advance! D. Matt Innis 20:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Re smog

Milton, per your request, I started a look-see of your excellent draft of smog at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Milton_Beychok/Sandbox. I couldn't get far as it's late for me here in San Francisco. I will try to get back to it in a few days. You have done a nice job with the topic, and hard work shows through. Anthony.Sebastian 03:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthony. Milton Beychok 03:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Renaming account

Hi Milt, thanks for fixing User:Deepak Mahaan. There are a few problems with moving an account instead of renaming. First, the user has to sign in using the DEEPAK MAHAAN user name instead of Deepak Mahaan. This also means that every time he uses the ~~~~, it will sign his name DEEPAK MAHAAN. Also, contributions will show up only under the DEEPAK MAHAAN account. I am not sure, but I think the email feature also will only work when you go to the DEEPAK MAHAAN user page. So if someone were to go to his user page to email him, it won't work (I don't think). D. Matt Innis 02:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Not being a Constable and not having sysop rights, once an applicant is confirmed, then I can no longer see what categories the applicant was confirmed for. In this case, I still had my written notes about Deepak, crumpled and in my wastebasket ... so all was okay in this instance.
Also, when I place an applicant on Hold and ask him/her to furnish further information, and he/she complies by emailing back to the Constabulary ... I do not get to see what he/she sends back. In other words, as an Editorial Personnel Administrator, I am not really privy to seeing enough information to make my job easier. It would sure help if, every time I place an applicant on hold, either you or Chris were to email me a copy of whatever further information that applicant supplies ... if he/she replies at all. Milton Beychok 02:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you see this page? If you are not blocked, put the user's name in and it should show you the application.
All the responses to your emails to editors that show up on the constable wiki that I saw, I forwarded to you. I think it has pnly been two or three. I also saw some that Hayford responded to and asked that they contact you. I will continue to forward them to you.
You should be the one that gets those emails. Hopefully, we'll fix that. D. Matt Innis 03:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Milt won't be able to see Special:UserCredentials... even I can't. It's Bureaucrats only. --Chris Key 04:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Chris, you're right, I cannot see it. Matt, I only received one response to the constabulary from Hayford and I have not received any from you. In any event, it would help me if you or Chris forward to me any responses that I need to see. Milton Beychok 06:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Milt, I have not seen any at all. I looked back into the history and I haven't seen any going back several months. If any do arrive, we shall definitely forward them to you. The problem is simply that nobody is replying. --Chris Key 15:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I found one. I've forwarded the copy of the email to your cox.net email address that I forwarded to you previously. Let me know if you don't get it. Other than that, the only ones I've seen were responded to by Hayford. There were very few. D. Matt Innis 20:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Matt: That's the one I received ... only I thought Hayford sent it to me. Anyhow, that person was confirmed about 2-3 weeks ago or so. Thanks, Milton Beychok 21:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Explosives

Explosives has been approved! Congratulations on a job well done. --Chris Key 16:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Question about natural gas

It occurs you'd know the answer to a question to a discussion that came up around the house. At what point is an odorant mixed with crude or refined natural gas? This came up in the context of the recent California fire, where my housemate thought a leaking pipeline would always be smelled. He assumes the odorants are added at the well.

I wondered if this was the case, since the raw gas might be reprocessed and the odorant would have to be removed; I assumed it was at the point of the refinery putting commercial natural gas into the distribution system. Perhaps the answer would be useful in an article.

Remember, I'm from New Jersey. We might just think butyl mercaptan is a new natural fragrance. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Odorants are not added to raw natural gas. They are added to the gas after it had been extensively processed (see Natural gas processing for description of that processing). The U.S. Dept. of Transportation and also many state pipeline regulations require odorants to be used in the transmission and distribution pipelines transporting natural gas. In any event, odorants are subject to what is called odorant fade. A leak from an underground gas pipeline would be subject to odorant fade as it seeped up through the soil.
Odorants are added in very small amounts (in the range of 2-5 ppm by volume). Although fairly easily detected if a leak occurs indoors, an outdoors underground leak of odorized gas might very well be undetectible due to odorant fade and/or dispersion due to wind and roadway traffic.
You might be enlightened by reading this. Milton Beychok 00:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S.: Natural gas odorizing is discussed in the "Safety" section of our Natural gas article. Milton Beychok 00:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Volatility, essential oils, aromatherapy

All related in various ways, and I'm looking at all as long as I think that CZ is alive. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Charter ratified by over two-thirds of the vote !

Howard, now you are safe in thinking that CZ is still alive. Milton Beychok 03:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a better phrase

What would you consider an appropriate phrase for the technologies and challenges of dissemination of relatively large amounts of aerosol, especially for biological warfare? I've started with "aerosol dispersion", but I don't like the phrase.

In BW, and to a lesser extent chemical warfare, one of the first problems is temperature control: don't cook the microorganisms, and some chemical agents, especially the nerve agents, ignite easily. Droplet size and controlling static attraction is another. The space available in munitions and aircraft spray tanks is an issue. Prevailing winds and microclimate need to be considered.

Howard C. Berkowitz 20:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Dispersion or dissemination ... but I think dispersion is the best. I cannot think of any others. Milton Beychok 20:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a chemistry author!

Say, Milt, guess what! I wrote an article about chemistry! It can be found at Alkaline pasta. I put it into both the Food Science and Chemistry workshop. I'm sure that it needs some editing, corrections, additions, etc. How can we do this so that eventually you, as a Chemistry Editor, might put it up for approval? I'd sure like to have *one* of my articles Approved someday -- so far the score is: Milt 50, Hayford 0, or thereabouts.... Thanks for taking a look at it! Hayford Peirce 22:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

First let me say, welcome back ! I really missed you. That article about alkaline pasta does have an interesting bit of chemistry and I do have some comments to offer. But my wife is waiting for us to go see a movie. I will try to provide my comments later tonight or tomorrow morning. I'll post them on the article's talk page.
By the way, my score is not 50 approved articles ... its only about 25. Milton Beychok 00:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
That's like Babe Ruth, back in 1920, say, when he hit 59 homers and the rest of the league *combined* hit about 45, saying, "Naw, gee, I really didn't hit all that many...." Enjoy the movie, and I look forward to your comments when you get around to them. Hayford Peirce 01:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks, Milt! Am drinking my coffee and will study your stuff later, but off the top of my head it all makes perfect sense! I had *thought* about using "sodium carbonate" instead of "baked soda" but didn't quite dare to -- wanted to hear from. You gotta remember, my own knowledge of chemistry is H20 -- and I have keep reminding myself that molecules are made up of atoms. Très confusing from my point of view! Will get back to you. Hayford Peirce 15:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, again. I've incorporated all of your suggestions and made a few changes and additions of my own. Any further comments would be greatly welcomed. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 17:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: Welcome!

Thanks for confirming my account. --Michael D. Suarez 12:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted your image

Hi MIlt, I deleted your image and other file! D. Matt Innis 01:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Editorial Council Authors

Milt, yes, I need you and Howard to vote again for Editorial Council Authors. It's fixed now! D. Matt Innis 12:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Editorial_Council_Authors

Archive box

Milt, I saw that you added an archive box (to the Roast turkey article). Do you know that the subpages template -- on the main talk page only -- already contains links to the archived pages? --Peter Schmitt 18:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

:Peter, I was trying to make all of the initial Talk page of Roast turkey (American) easily found. What I ended up doing doesn't seem to work. I think that the Talk page of the new Roast turkey/Recipes is where all of that initial Talk page should be archived and should have a visible archive box. I don't think it should be hidden away where it is too difficult to find. Can you make that happen, please? Milton Beychok 19:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter, I was trying to make the archive of all of the original talk page clearly visible and easy to find. Since subpages don't have talk pages, I think the archive belongs at the current Talk:Roast turkey. Can you make that happen, please? Milton Beychok 19:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
What I meant to tell you (in case you are not aware of it) is that the (main) talk page of a main space page always automatically has a "hidden" archive box: Go to "Checklist and archives" in the subpages template and click "Show". --Peter Schmitt 22:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Peter, I am very busy at the moment and cannot answer you at length. My primary concern is that archive box should not be "hidden". It should be easily and visibly accessible. Milton Beychok 22:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Reconstruction

Having discovered this in your sandbox, I scanned with interest. I wonder if we might want to contextualize it with lessons learned in many occupations, perhaps inviting people with direct experience, such as the former Mayor of Stuttgart -- perhaps a Topic Informant from him?

Just as food for thought, you might want to look at some of the lessons learned, or if I should make them more explicit, both in Operation RANKIN, and the needed articles on the occupations of Germany and Japan. I'm not happy with the structure of the Iraq War material, although there's a good deal under Iraq War, insurgency. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I am no historian and I have no intention changing any of the content of the article. I am just going to "wikify" the article by revising Jenson's tedious and lengthy method of referencing (having both a lengthy Bibliography section in the main article as well as an even lengthier list in the Biblio subpage ... and then a lengthy, but cryptic list of "notes" (i.e. references) , that point to the books in the main article Bibliography section for the complete citation. I will replace that 2-step system of referencing with our usual 1-step procedure. I also plan to try and upload the Wikipedia graphics (if I can) for which Jensen just left place holders. Other than that, I won't even attempt to make any content edits.
You might note that I just finished similar wikifying of Black history and Slavery, U.S.. I just got tired of seeing these articles, originally uploaded from Wikipedia, siting there and never being put into CZ format ... so I did just that.
Its easier for me to do those things in my sandbox and then later transfer the finished product to the existing main article. That way, the main article History page won't fill up with all of my multitude of trial-and-error edits while I work out what I want to do. Milton Beychok 21:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. The dejensening and CZ-fying (cough) are quite needed. When it moves to mainspace, I'll try to improve content. I do have a Civil War historian in the house (not me). Howard C. Berkowitz 21:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Going cold turkey

Hi, Milt, could you take a look at: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Roast_turkey#What_do_we_do_now_with_the_turkey_recipes.3F__Asking_for_opinions_and_thoughts.... and offer your considered opinion when you have a moment? Many thanks! Hayford Peirce 22:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that a constable should completely delete the article for the reasons given in the first two sections of CZ:Article Deletion Policy about worthless, inaccurate articles, namely these quotes from that CZ article:
  • the article is of such low quality (in terms of inaccuracy, bias, poor writing, or whatever) that it would be more efficient to start over than to try to clean up the current one (this also can be achieved by blanking, if one does in fact wish to start over)
Perhaps one of the Constable would delete the article "acting on their own recognizance". As a former constable, you know them ... why not ask them to do so? Milton Beychok 22:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Milt, I've taken the liberty of cutting your comments and pasting them into the Talk page of the Roast turkey article. Many thanks for your thoughts! Hayford Peirce 22:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Image

Milton, as I recall you are the expert on image attribution - if you have time would you mind taking a look at this discussion to see if you can shed any light? Cheers. David Finn 07:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

David, I went there and provided all the information that I could recall. It is now 1:00 AM in the morning and I am off to bed. Milton Beychok 08:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't ask for more, thanks for your opinion and have a good night. David Finn 08:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I wished to thank you for your welcome message delivered to me. Richard Lai 20:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Would like to hear your thoughts on Atoms and Molecules article

Milt, I looked at the Atoms and Molecules article. I've got reservations as to whether that article needs expansion. I've opened a section on its Talk page to talk about it and would like to hear your thoughts. Matt Arenas Mercado 02:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments on the article. I have responded there on that Talk page. Regards, Milton Beychok 06:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Milt, I left my thoughts on the article in the talk page. David E. Volk 13:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help. However, I have to agree with David Volk's sentiment that the article isn't necessary. Thinking about it more, even if it was made into a "pointer article" as I suggested, the results from the "Search" box gives, practically, the same results. I hope you won't mind. Matt Arenas Mercado 14:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Milt, I also requested for the speedy deletion of the article's Definition and Bibliography pages. I'm not sure how this works but I believe it needs editor approval so I just wanted to let you know if any constable comes asking. Matt Arenas Mercado 16:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Matt. I have just talked to our Constable, Matt Innis , about removing those two subpages as well. Yes, you should always ask an editor to request speedy deletions for you ... but don't worry about it. Milton Beychok 17:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Images

If we are to use an image under the fair-use licence, what are the requirements? For example, if it is a picture of a person that is copyrighted, but that person is still alive - are we justified in claiming fair-use if it is possible to find that person and take a picture of them?

Or, to pick a random example, if we can only find a fair-use photo for Stonehenge, but we know Stonehenge is there and we could go take a photo, are we justified in using the fair-use image when it is only personal circumstances preventing us getting a PD photo?

Another question - if someone makes an image, a photo or video, and we make a copy of that. Does the copyright then become ours? Example - someone takes a photograph of a single frame of a copyrighted video. The single frame is copyright of the original producer, but does the photograph of the single frame then become copyright of the photographer, or rest with the original producer of the frame?

And a last question - I read somewhere on Citizendium (but cannot find it again) that we were not to use the fair-use rationale on Citizendium until such time as it's implications were clarified by a legal expert. Do you know if that happened, are we allowed to use fair-use now, or are we still wary of non-free images. And as a side question to that, we are a free encyclopedia - how much use of non-free images is desired?

Sorry if that is a lot of questions, or out of your field of interest. I can post this elsewhere if need be. Thanks for your time in any respect, and good work on the templates page. David Finn 07:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

All good questions for a lawyer, which I am not. I really don't know the answer to any of them and the forum is the best place to ask about them. But don't hold your breath waiting for answers. CZ really must find on of our lawyer members and get him/her interested in becoming our image guru. I have uploaded a few fair use images myself and came up with some boiler plate statements that I provided in the "Notes" sections of the image file summaries. When I get a chance, I will locate one of them and refer you to it. But it may be later today. Milton Beychok 17:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the great welcome!

It was great to see your note on my talk page, and even better to see you still deeply involved in encylopedia writing. I am planning to assign my bioseparations class to write a suite of short articles on bioseparation topics, as I did in 2006-2008 over on Wikipedia. There is more room to contribute such things here than over there, and just as important, the experience here should be more positive for the students. Jean B. Hunter 22:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jean: Just be sure to inform your students that we frown on simply importing Wikipedia (WP) articles and then not modifying them to fit into our style for articles using our default article subpages .... and even more so without checking the WP article thoroughly for correctness (including all of the references). Your students should also understand:
  • Many of the templates used at WP do not work on Citizendium (CZ)
  • Transferring graphics (photos, diagrams, etc.) in WP articles requires that the graphics first be transferred to the student's computer and then uploaded into CZ using our Upload Wizard. Also, CZ requires that the uploader ascertain and provide the real name (no pseudonyms) of the copyright owner (either an individual's name or an organization's name) for any graphics obtained at Wikimedia Commons or Flickr that are not in the Public Domain. The uploader must also provide the specific url of the website page where the graphic was found or the name of the book from which it was obtained. Of course, if the uploader created the graphic himself or herself, then there is no problem.
If you need any help learning our article styles, please contact me and I will try to be helpful. Regards, Milton Beychok 00:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
By Public Domain, I am referring to works of any agency or entity of the U.S. Government ... or graphics which are older than 70 years and therefore the copyrights have expired. However, if some individual or organization created an image and published it as in the Public Domain, then the real name of that person is still needed. Milton Beychok 04:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Milton: Thanks for your cautions and for your offer to help in climbing the learning curve here. We aren't planning just to import and reformat WP articles; we intend to select article topics we consider important and then to write original articles to cover them.
Understanding that some topics require more description than others, in your opinion is there any approximate "optimal length" for an article on a chemical process?
Would it benefit Citizendium if my students created some lemma topics or stubs in addition to their full size articles? In your opinion would creation of a lemma article and/or stub article be a good way for students to "get their feet wet" here?
I have another question about the "related topics" page. I'm not sure what "Subtopics" means. For example, in your article on flash evaporation, it makes sense for the parent topic to be engineering, or better yet chemical engineering as the parent topic and engineering as a "grandparent" topic. But chemical engineering is listed as a subtopic, and topics which seem to me to be subtopics of flash evaporation are listed as related topics.
Thanks in advance for your advice. Jean B. Hunter 23:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Jean, here are my responses:

  • There is no "optimal article length". In my opinion, just keep in mind that we are writing encyclopedia articles and not textbooks. Also keep in mind, that the audience may range from high school students to experienced graduate, working engineers and biologists. That's a pretty difficult balance ... but that's the way it is.
  • Although I have created some lemma article, I personally prefer stubs to lemmas ... and, yes, I think that stubs are a good way for your students to wet their feet.
  • Each of our article "clusters" include the main article, a "Definition" subpage, a "Related Articles" subpage (which replaces the "See also" section in WP articles), a "Bibliography" subpage for books and journal articles primarily, and an "External Links" subpage for hyperlinks to online sources primarily. Those are the "default" subpages. There are other subpages as well but they can wait until you've been here a while. Each cluster also has a "Metadata template" which is very important. Among other points, the Metadata page is where the author selects which workgroup the article falls under. Cat1, Cat2 and Cat3 on the Metadata template are for the author to select up to 3 workgroups (i.e., categories). Sub1, Sub2, and Sub3 are for the author to select up to 3 subgroups (i.e., Sub-categories).
  • With that in mind, I almost always use the workgroups I selected in the Metadata template as the "Parent topics", the subgroups selected in the Metadata and perhaps others sometimes as the "Subtopics", and all other relevant articles as the "Other related topics". However, many of our authors do it somewhat differently. So, in the end, it is up to the first author. As with all articles, anyone can come along later on and revise what the first author has done. Also, the designated Editors like myself should be providing guidance over the Metadata templates and subpages as well. (I am an Editor in the Engineering workgroup as well as the Chemistry workgroup.) So for, example that makes me an Editor in the Chemical Engineering subgroup as well ... since subgroups do not have designated Editors. (All of this may change in the future now that we have just ratified our new Charter).

You will note in many of the articles which I created that I have very often selected both Engineering and Chemistry, or Engineering and Physics, or all three as the workgroups on the Metadata template ... and subsequently often as the parent topics for the "Related Articles" subpage.

The Chemical Engineering subgroup, when selected in the Metadata, uses a capital C and a capital E, as differentiated from the Chemical engineering article and so one must be sure to use those capitals when selecting the subgroups. The Metadata template then subsequently automatically lists the selected categories and subcategories on the bottom of the main article and also automatically lists the article in each of the selected workgroups and subgroups.

On any of our existing articles, you will note green subpages banner at the top of the article. At the far right of the first line in the banner is a small yellow circle with an M in it. That is a link that takes you directly to the Metadata template of any existing article.

One final thing and this is a known bug. Very often, even when the Metadata template has been correctly created and it has listed the selected categories correctly at the bottom of an article, the article does not show up as being listed in the selected workgroups. In that case, one must go the main article edit page and make what we call a "null" edit like simply adding a space or two at the end of a paragraph ... and that results in the article showing up correctly in the article lists of the selected workgroups.

I know this is quite a bit to absorb ... if you run into trouble let me know and I will help out. Milton Beychok 02:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I'm creating Eduzendium pages now, a process which appears to automate some of the details you explain above.
I'm sure the students will want to include some equations. Is there a local CZ: page on formatting of mathematical equations? Is it safe to refer students to the instructions at [2] ? Jean B. Hunter 18:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Need help with definition of allotropy

Hey, Milt.

Would you happen to know any good(authoritative) sources for the definition of allotropy? I normally consult the IUPAC Gold Book for these things but I don't get their definition of it (Different structural modifications of an element.; if you can explain it to me, I'd quite appreciate it). Both the allotrope articles on CZ (link) and Wikipedia (link) use the term, "form," which I can't trace a definition of. Matt Arenas Mercado 13:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Matt: Go to the user page of David E. Volk and get his CZ email (scroll down left hand navigation panel to find the link to it). Then email him with your question and I am sure he can explain it better to you than I can.
The best I can do is: The existence, especially in the solid state, of two or more crystalline or molecular structural forms of an element. The word "form" means shape or structural shape or pattern. Graphite and diamond are allotropes of carbon. Milton Beychok 16:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll contact David Volk about it. Matt Arenas Mercado 11:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Acid rain

Sorry, Milt, I had not had time to read the article. But I will. --Peter Schmitt 22:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No need to thank for every edit, Milt. I have not even read the whole article yet ... --Peter Schmitt 09:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
No, of course it does not bother me. Thank you. But I know that you have other, more important things to do. --Peter Schmitt 23:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nominated Acid rain for approval

Milton, nomination banner up. Hope I did it correctly. Anthony.Sebastian 03:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, I made some corrections (and Milt updated the version). Please check if you agree! --Peter Schmitt 16:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Links to acid rain in other countries

Milton, using Bing, I found these links useful re issue of acid rain in other countries:

Acid Rain: Downpour in Asia. A meaty article.

Acid rain. Re acid rain in China, see ‘Did you know?’ section.

Acid rain in Europe. No refs.

Transboundary pollution.

Acid Rain in China. Fairly meaty.

Whatever Happened To... Acid Rain?. Interesting tidbit on acid rain in Russia.

Anthony.Sebastian 16:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthony. I will add a section named "Affected countries" or "Affected areas" in the next day or two. For the moment, I am trying to get a donation drive started (see Forums) to raise the money we need to pay our costs for hosting our servers. Or, it would be most helpful, if you would provide me with a draft of the "Affected countries" countries including specific references. Milton Beychok 16:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ombudsman

See CZ Talk:Ombudsman Gareth Leng 12:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Did we approve the correct version of Acid rain?

Milton, did we approve correct version of Acid rain? Anthony.Sebastian 15:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we did. I just checked the History and it has the last small edit that I made in the section that Johan wrote.

did I destroy something?

Milton, I just tried to make a new article with the name m/z. Unfortunately this may also be a internal command and I think the article was not created and I hope nothing was damaged. Could you please check. Do you have an idea how to create an article with this name? Vera Kehrli 12:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for replying instead of Milt... Vera, I do not think you destroy something. In order to make "m/z", see CZ:How To#How to make article titles with a "/" in them. (Though, I never used it.) Boris Tsirelson 12:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I also have never used that slash character in a title. Boris seems to have answered your question. Milton Beychok 18:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

EPA

As you're still listed as one, maybe you can answer this. Is there a page somewhere I could put on my watchlist that would tell me when new editors were inducted? Categories don't work, because the changes are made indirectly and don't show up. Peter Jackson 11:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Peter, if you are talking about editors inducted some time ago, you can look at the History log of their user page and also the History log of their user Talk page to see when they were inducted.
If you are talking about learning of brand new inductees, I keep a link on my user page to the "User Creation Log" at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Special:Log&type=newusers ... but that lists new inductees without telling you whether they are authors only or authors and editors. You still have to go their user page and/or user Talk page to find out whether or not they are editors.
I would suggest that you also ask Matt Innis this question. Perhaps he knows of a better place to locate that information. Milton Beychok 16:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
It was the latter I meant. I'll try Matt as you suggest. Thanks anyway. Peter Jackson 14:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Vacuum (science)

Hi Milton:

The page Vacuum (science) should be recast as a disambiguation article. I don't know how that is done, so I hope you might undertake to do that. Thank you. John R. Brews 17:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

John, I am not clear on what you mean by "recast as a disambiguation article". I am very busy and tied up for the next 2-3 days. Please ask Howard Berkowitz or Peter Schmitt to help you. I'm sure that either one will help. Milton Beychok 18:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Milton: I attempted this myself. I made Vacuum a disambiguation page, and Vacuum (classical) a redirect to Free space (electromagnetism). Several other vacuum articles referred to are not yet extant. John R. Brews 19:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
First of all, please call me Milt. You did pretty well ... but for two things:
  • I changed the disambiguation page name to Vacuum (disambiguation) because all such pages should include "(disambiguation)"
  • I added the {{dambigbox|article name|word being disambiguated}} template to the Vacuum (science) article. Look at the edit page of that article to see how the template parameters ("article name" and "word being disambiguated") are used. (That is the same template as I used to disambiguate Free space (electromagnetism) for you.
Milton Beychok 20:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Two things

Milton, I checked the Talk page for Knowledge as you suggested, and responded with a new section. Will you see what you think.

To be perfectly candid, I think your new section should be moved to a subpage (entitled Etiology maybe?). In my opinion, it is not on topic enough to be in the main article. Milton Beychok 08:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, will you consider adding your name ToApprove the 05 Dec 2010 version of Homeopathy. Gareth put effort to clean it up, and it's a lot better than the currently approved version. I don't think as written it would invite anyone to choose homeopathy for health care. I'd like to this homeopathy issue less distracting. Anthony.Sebastian 08:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, what I know about Homeopathy is nil. I never read the article. It would be quite unprofessional for me to add my name To Approve the article. Sorry. Milton Beychok 08:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

WP & Citizendium

Hi Milton:

I noticed that there are many very simple topics (like Absolute temperature, for instance) that are missing from CZ. What is the stance of CZ about just importing articles wholesale from WP to fill these gaps, especially for simple matters like this? John R. Brews 15:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

John, our Editorial Council just recently passed a motion concerning importation of WP articles (see this notice in the Forums: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,3606.msg38410.html#msg38410 and scroll down to Reply #4.). That notice reads:
We have passed, by a 6-1 vote, proposal PR-2010-013 dealing with the importation of articles from Wikipedia and other sources, which you may view at http://locke.citizendium.org/cz_ec/PR-2010-013
There may well be future exceptions that the EC will consider on a case-by-case basis, but basically we have ruled that no Wikipedia article may be brought into CZ unless the text of that article has been written primarily by the Citizen bringing it in.
Existing articles in CZ will be grandfathered in, but even those will be subject to stringent review by the EC and Editors as time passes and will be subject to our new rules about Inclusion.
John, its a good idea to join our Forums and start keeping up with what is going on.
Also, have you read these seven existing articles? Temperature conversion, Celsius (unit), Kelvin (unit), Fahrenheit (unit), Rankine (unit), Temperature and Absolute zero
Regards, Milton Beychok 17:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Milton: I've got a few dozen images on WP that I'd guess could be imported here under this policy. They may not have immediate use on CZ because the articles don't exist yet.
Assuming they are imported, how are images arranged so they can be retrieved later on? John R. Brews 22:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
John, first let me say that our policy allows us to import images from Wikimedia Commons but only if we can ascertain, confirm and document the real name of the image creator and/or copyright holder. If the images you wish to import were all created by you, then there is no problem. All you have to do is be sure that they are also on Wikimedia Commons. That is what I did with many images that I created and/or uploaded into WP (when I was a Wikipedian for 2-3 years). The same holds true for Flickr ... images can be imported from Flickr but only if we can ascertain the real name of the image creator and if the licensing chosen by that creator allows usage.
As for uploading images into CZ and retrieving them for later use, that is a major problem. We currently have no systematic classification method for images ... nor do I think we will have such system in the foreseeable future. I have uploaded about 300 images into CZ and I created my own galleries to store them in. If you will look at my user page, you will find links to My Image Galleries 1, 2, 3, 4. That is how I insure that I can find them a year from now or later. Does this answer your query? Regards, Milton Beychok 23:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Very clear, Milton. John R. Brews 23:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Milton: Please take a look at this WP import that I propose to post here on CZ. It was written by me and has figures from the US Patent office and original figures by me. Are the permissions in order? Is this ready to go? Thank you. John R. Brews 14:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Milton: I have gone ahead with this. If there are problems with it, please advise. Thanks much. John R. Brews 18:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) Speaking here as a member of Editorial Council that just banned WP imports except for those written by the CZ Citizen importing the article, I think that we're going to have a mechanism for identifying this articles -- that was an issue that we didn't consider at all. When I was bringing in my own articles from WP I always put a prominent note to that effect on the Talk page. There used to be a template to use for this, but I don't think that anyone except me has used it for years. I suppose I'll have ask the other EC members about this, sigh. Hayford Peirce 18:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll add a note like that on the Talk page. It is labeled "status=4", which is some indication. John R. Brews 19:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

NY Times article

I think some of your articles might get some extra traffic today: This article is among the headlines in the NY Times this morning and the text uses more than a couple of the terms for which you've developed articles. As I recall, a couple of those articles even appear pretty high in search engine results. --Joe Quick 14:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Renaming an existing article

Hi Milt: I've suggested on Talk:Metal Oxide Semi-conductor Field Effect Transistor that this article be renamed to Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor, which appears to be by far the more common spelling. I thought that could be done by making Metal Oxide Semi-conductor Field Effect Transistor a redirect and moving the content to the new title. However, that process appears to be complicated when subpages are present. Can you provide some advice on how to do this, assuming this idea of mine appears useful? John R. Brews 16:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I can do the renaming for you, if you wish. Let me know. Whenever I am not available to help you, try contacting D. Matt Innis and he will help you. Milton Beychok 17:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Milt: Great! I've also suggested that Vacuum_(science) be made a redirect to the disambiguation page Vacuum, or better, deleted and all links to it redirected to the appropriate version of vacuum. The problem here is that Vacuum (science) may refer to several ideas, as detailed on Vacuum. John R. Brews 17:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I have renamed Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor. As for Vacuum (science), instead of deleting it, I would rather just rename it to Vacuum (laboratory) as you have already done on the disambiguation page. Would that be okay with you? Milton Beychok 19:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Various meanings of vacuum

Hi Milt: I've rather assertively amended some definitions of various vacuums and made a recommendation on the Talk page at Vacuum (laboratory). I got a bit panicked about this, and moved abruptly. It might be desirable to have an extended discussion of the various meanings and to present the views of some sources to see just what the best portrayal of this topic might be. John R. Brews 13:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that I have read your Talk comments at Vacuum (laboratory), I removed the deletion request tag for the time being. John, I would rather leave this subject to members of the Physics workgroup. I strongly recommend that you contact Daniel Mietchen ( an active physics editor), Johan A. Förberg (an active physics author) and David E. Volk (a periodically active physics author). Daniel is our new Managing Editor and Johan is a member of our Editorial Council ... so they are quite busy, but they are also very accessible. David is also very helpful, but not often accessible. There are no other active physics editors or authors that I know of.
I am not a physicist by any stretch of the imagination and I really cannot be of much help to you on this subject. Milton Beychok 16:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Milt: Thanks for your help here. I'll follow your suggestions in a few days. First I'm going to try to piece together some possible articles under these headings as sandbox items to replace the simple definitions that are all that exist now for some of these entries. Then I imagine approaching these editors and suggesting that they might critique the proposals. John R. Brews 17:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Milt

I owe you the apology, Milt, I've re-read your post on my talk page and realize that I must have misinterpreted your post. I've responded there. D. Matt Innis 01:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

(I moved this from the Owens Lake talk page because it really has nothing to do with that article)
Milt, I hope you realize that, as a constable, I cannot make a content edit. I can, however, help to keep things peaceful while others make changes. You made your changes properly and explained the reasons for what you did. If anyone wants to make changes to your changes, then they will have to discuss them here as well. I'm here to just make sure we talk professionally to each other while we slowly improve the article. D. Matt Innis 02:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Image size and line breaking

Hi, Milt, on the Owens Lake page you adapted the image size to avoid a bad line break. Are you aware that such changes are in vain because line breaks depend on the browser, the screen used, and the skin. For instance, on my display "(particulate matter)" is now the last line but was "dust (particulate matter)" before this change. --Peter Schmitt 00:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me. Milton Beychok 03:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

New engineering author User:Mahadev Shivshankar Tadkase

Thanks for the new literature author. I'll trade you a new (chemical?) engineering author. Bruce M. Tindall 19:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

back for a little bit

Hi Milt. :-) I'm back for a little bit, although affairs in my life are still keeping me very busy. Sorry I was away for so long, but I never intended to simply abandon Citizendium. I'm glad to see you're still active here.

I've written this new Citizendium article called Sacrifice (chess). I hope I've made the subpages correctly. Henry A. Padleckas 09:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you back, Henry. The subpages for Sacrifice (chess) look good to me. Milton Beychok 16:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. Henry A. Padleckas 17:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User names

Thanks, Milt, you're absolutely right. For the guy whose name ended in RN, I realized right after creating the account that it was wrong, so I blocked the account and emailed him for more info, which I'm still waiting for. Sorry I didn't notice the "richard" problem at all, although I do know the correct order of the name; it is Carmel Richard: she is Ms. Richard and her given name is Carmel.

I know that existing user names can be changed (mine was, a couple of years ago) but I'm not sure how to do it. Can you enlighten me? Bruce M. Tindall 19:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure of how to do it once the account is confirmed. Usually Matt has done it, so I can only assume' that you have to be a constable or have some sysop rights to do it. What I do, is change the name in the application before I confirm the account. That is quite simple to do. Milton Beychok 20:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Strangely enough, changing a user name is one of the most highly recondite powers a Citizen can have, hehe. Even as a Cop I didn't have it, at least not at first. You have to be a Bureaucrat or Dark Knight or some damn thing. I *think* that for a long while only Matt and Larry (and maybe Ruth) could do it. Then, I think, *maybe* I was given that Power also. So yes, I'm sure that Matt can do it, but you're going to have to ask him to. Hayford Peirce 20:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
You need to be either Bureaucrat or Linneaus. Currently Dan, Matt and Greg are the only Bureaucrats, and there are no Linneaus personnel. Matt is probably the only one who has both the ability and authority to do it. --Chris Key 09:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Milt, I did see Chris's comment above. I didn't even know we had Linneauses, er, Linneai? To recap: for the applicant whose initials "RN" came after his name, I blocked the incorrect account a few minutes after mistakenly approving it, and asked him to send a full name. So there is no such account any more. For the mistakenly lower-cased account name, Matt has fixed that, using his Bureaucrat superpowers. Bruce M. Tindall 21:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I recall now that for a while I was a Linneaus, maybe the sole one, or one of the two.... Hayford Peirce 21:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

authorships

Milton, unless something has changed, anyone can be an author in any category they wish. Only Editorship needed to be approved for each workgroup. I note that you have removed someone's authorship tags. David E. Volk 09:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

David, the "Comment" that I send each applicant I approve tells them quite clearly that they are free to participate as authors in any of the workgroups.
In the recent case that I think you are talking about, the applicant asked for editor and authorship in a number of categories. I felt that he did not have the qualifications to be both an editor and author in all of the categories he chose, so I eliminated some of them. Then I wrote him a direct email that:
  • Told him that he was confirmed as an author and was free to participate in any workgroup.
  • Told him of the detailed requirements needed before his editorship requests could be considered.
  • Told him that we needed his agreement to keep his biography publicly available.
  • Asked him to look at 3 specific example biographies of editors on CZ for guidance.
The format of my email was vetted by Hayford and the EC about a month ago. The biography requirements are spelled out in the EC's regulation EC:R-2011-002 available here. The requirements are now also spelled out in the "Editor" section of CZ:User pages which was recently approved by the MC.
When that applicant responds, then he will be considered for editorship only in those workgroups for which I feel he is qualified. Milton Beychok 16:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
David, if you think that adding authorship tags for all of the categories the applicant named, please feel free to do so. However , as I told him, he is free to participate as an author in any workgroup. Milton Beychok 16:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)