imported>Approval Manager |
|
| (21 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| Please start a new section for each new topic. Resolved discussions will be moved to an archive. | | Please start a new section for each new topic. Resolved discussions will be moved to an archive. |
| {{archive box|auto=long}} | | {{archive box|auto=long}} |
| == Homeopathy reapproval ==
| |
|
| |
|
| Hi, Joe, could you take a look at the last comment section at [[Talk:Homeopathy/Draft]] and tell us what you think needs to be done. Ie, how many Editors do we need, and who can they be? As far as Constable approval, I've been working on the draft, so I'm out. Matt *hasn't* worked on the draft, but was, I believe, an Editor for the *Approved* version. I'm sure that there are other technical aspects also to be considered. Thanks! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
| | == [[Randomized controlled trial]] == |
|
| |
|
| == Another issue -- please see the new Forum topic == | | From my talk page: I dropped the ball! So glad you are here :) We need a date in the metadata and there is an issue on the talk page. [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User_talk%3ARobert_Badgett&action=historysubmit&diff=100780572&oldid=100779195 see Robert's talk page]]. |
|
| |
|
| Bibliographies in Approved articles apparently aren't protected!
| | :I certified approval of version dated 04:39 26 January 2012. This is a re-approval of a previously approved version. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 13:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| See: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2675.0.html [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
| | ==Priorities in Economics, Politics and History== |
| | I should be inclined to give first priorities to articles that serve as portals to others. At the basic level they would, of course, be [[Economics]], [[Politics]] and [[History]]. Equally important are some higher-level portals such as [[Financial system]], [[Great Recession]], [[Fiscal policy]] and [[Europe]]. If topicality is considered important, you might consider [[Eurozone crisis]] and [[Arab Spring]]. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 14:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Good timing! I've been wanting to address that. I replied in the forum thread. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]] 14:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
| | :That certainly makes sense to me. I'll have a look myself, but do you think any of those top-level articles are ready or nearly ready for approval? The articles on current issues might be hard, since they will presumably continue to be updated as things unfold. Since approved articles preempt drafts as the first thing visitors see, such articles would need to be frequently re-approved. -- Joe Quick ([[User:Approval_Manager|Approval Manager]]) 15:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| == Starting series on their way == | | == Approval 'Applied Consciousness Sciences' article == |
|
| |
|
| I'd like to start several series of articles on the way to approval, starting with the hopefully less controversial top-level. One good starting place is [[interrogation]] and a more challenging one is [[extrajudicial detention]]. They have "peer" or even higher-level articles such as [[eduction]] and [[elicitation]], as well as going down into national and period policy. | | Hi, I'd like to request for the approval of the 'Applied Consciousness Sciences' article. This way I know what needs to be corrected. --[[Carlo]] |
|
| |
|
| Are the workgroups realistic in terms of coverage and available editors? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 15:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
| | == Various computing articles == |
|
| |
|
| :Finding a law editor could be a challenge. There is a lawyer at the University of Chicago who chairs the program in human rights and who likes me a whole lot who I might be able to convince to help us out. She's awfully busy though, so I don't want to waste a favor unless we're '''''really''''' confident that we've done the best job possible.
| | There are a number listed on the "ready for approval" page, at least one old enough to have been added by Howard. Most I cannot approve because they are my writing. For the Howard one, I've commented on the talk page. |
|
| |
|
| :Otherwise, Roger Lohmann and Shamira Gelbman can probably cover politics and Daniel Mietchen can probably cover psychology, but I don't think these topics are within the fields of expertise for any of them. I'm at work now and waiting for a student who should be here in a few minutes, but I'll try to give it some attention tonight. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 16:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
| | Two I'd particularly like to see move along are [[Block cipher]] and Cypherpunk. Both are mainly my writing, both were previously approved, but both have had a fair bit of change since. Cypherpunk is irritating; WP imported most of our article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Citizendium_Porting#Articles] but both have changed since then and their current version is noticably better than our approved version. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 01:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ::Could we consider using the available editors for the primary tasks, but getting non-citizen law experts to submit reviews to you? We're going to have the problem of expertise at the workgroup level of granularity; while I may be an expert on [[routing]], I'm not on [[HTML]], although both are Computers. In like manner, I know a lot about some military and intelligence technologies and periods, but, since I've been on a horse twice, I'm not the best to be writing about horse cavalry. | | :Sandy, I will look into that, and get back to you for thoughts you may have on how to facilitate moving the process along for specific articles. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 01:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ::Apropos of that last, relatively few of the [[United States Army Special Forces]] personnel sent into Afghanistan to fight with the [[Northern Alliance]] could ride, and were severely chafed. Since there was no opportunity to measure them for chaps, the eventual solution was to airdrop heavy-duty pantyhose. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
| | You asked on my talk page which articles might be ready, and who could approve. [[Block cipher]] is one; Peter Schmitt was an approving editor for version 1. I think Pat Palmer is the only active computers editor other than me. |
|
| |
|
| :::'''''That''''' is amusing. What article is that in?[[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 07:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
| | That is a large article. It might be quick & simple to approve some shorter ones such [[Alice and Bob]], [[Rot 13]] or [[Caesar cipher]]. The most interesting short one is Cryptology. On Wikipedia, that is just a redirect to cryptography. Here. there was a lot of discussion, see the talk page. I think it is fine as it is. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 02:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ::::[[Afghanistan War (2001-)]]. I expanded the section, and, since it's presumably stable material, put it into a text box. In general, I avoid text boxes as hard to edit while collaborative work is in progress.
| | == Portal articles == |
|
| |
|
| ::::In this case, my major concern is the background color — should it properly be beige, taupe, Nearly Nude, etc., and should it show texture? Was there any experimental use of fishnets? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
| | May I draw your attention again to the portal articles [[Politics]] and [[Economics]] ? Both are well-developed with large numbers of wikilinks. You might also consider [[Europe]] on the same grounds. I should be willing to introduce any changes that are deemed necessary. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 10:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| :Howard, the ''very'' short subsections in [[interrogation]] bother me. They make the article feel unfinished even if there isn't anything more to say about those topics. Is there a way that some or all of them could be incorporated into other parts of the text? --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 16:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC) | | :Thanks, Nick, will do. |
|
| |
|
| ::Other than things that should be clearly introductory to subordinate sections, I think those have been cleaned up. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC) | | :For each of those three articles, will you give me a list names of users that I can ask for comments on the article, including an Editor or two among the article's workgroup categories. |
|
| |
|
| :::We don't seem to have progressed; any way to get this moving again. Incidentally, relatively short subsections do help greatly when wikilinking to other articles; I might agree with you if this were a pure linear paper document. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 05:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC) | | :Thanks. —[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 16:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC), Approval Manager |
|
| |
|
| :::: May I remind you? It is possibile to add anchors as link targets without using sectioning commands. [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 09:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC) | | ::The only two names that come to mind are Roger Lohman and Russell Jones. As politics and history editor, Roger is well qualified to asssess both [[Politics]] and [[Europe]] - and Russell might be persuaded to add his comments. On the face of it [[Economics]] presents a difficulty because - as far as I know - I am the only available member of the economics workgroup. However, an assessment of [[Economics]] requires no knowledge of economics because it is no more than a portal. And, although Russell does not claim to be an economist, I note that it says in his talk page that economics was a component of his PhD thesis. So the two of them together might provide assessments of all three articles. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 09:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC) |
| | |
| :::::Also remember that short sections have readability advantages, especially with small or low resolution screens. What might seem unfinished in a printed document is good human interface design in a hyperdocument. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| [outdent] You're right, Howard; I lost track of this one. I'll get back to it as soon as I can manage. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 18:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Kamehameha I ==
| |
| | |
| In my opinion, [[Kamehameha I]] is as close to being "complete" as it can be. I think I have covered all major aspects of his life. I am asking you four; Joe Quick (as approvals manager), Roger Lohmann (as a history and politics editor), Russell Jones (as a history editor), and Howard Berkowitz (as a military editor), to look over the article and suggest any changes you think neccessary. Between the five of us, I don't see why we can't get this article improved. Thanks for your time. [[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 09:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Re-approval of [[Amine gas treating/Draft]] ==
| |
| | |
| Joe, a day or two ago, I made a number of revisions/additions to the [[Amine gas treating/Draft]] article as suggested by [[User:Wim Van Wassenhove|Wim Van Wassenhove]] ... so the article is in need of re-approval. The original approval was by [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]]. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 17:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Would you put me in contact with a Mathematics editor? ==
| |
| | |
| Hi Joe,
| |
| | |
| Paul Wormer and I have been working on the article "Associated Legendre Functions". I think it is now ready for promotion to "ToApprove" stage. I have been working with Peter Schmitt on another article and intended to ask him to do this. However, Peter will not be available for the next 2 weeks. Would you recommend a mathematics editor that Paul and I can work with to get the article approved? Also, does the approval target the cluster or just one of the articles in a cluster. In other words, do I have to make an approval request for the main article and for each sub-page in the cluster or does approval focus on all of the pages in a cluster? [[User:Dan Nessett|Dan Nessett]] 17:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :One way to do this is by having a look at the active editors listed in the following table (obtained via <nowiki>{{Workgroup|group= Mathematics}}</nowiki>):
| |
| {{Workgroup|group= Mathematics}}
| |
| :[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 17:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| Right. However, I don't know which of these are actually "active." That is, after reading some of the comments on various fora, it appears there are editors who are listed as active, but in fact rarely show up. I would like to contact a mathematics editor that will work with us on a reasonable time-scale. Since I don't know which of the listed editors are actively participating, I was hoping Joe would have a better handle on the question. [[User:Dan Nessett|Dan Nessett]] 18:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == [[Henry's Law]] needs re-approval again ==
| |
| | |
| Joe, I just made some significant fixes to [[Henry's law]] as explained on its Talk page. It needs re-approval again. This one and [[Amine gas treating]] which also needs re-approval (see above) were both approved originally by David Volk. Would you please contact him about re-approving both of them? Thanks, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 21:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :: I made 2 suggestions for the [[Amine gas treating]] article, and I will get around to [[Henry's law]] as time allows. There are alot of little math changes that are hard to "see" by looking at the "differences". [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 02:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::Thanks, David. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 14:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| | |
| == Re-Approval of [[Amine gas treating]] ==
| |
| Joe, how do I nominate a draft for approval? Can I just paste in the lastest draft link in place of the old one? [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 21:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Yes, David, paste that link in the url= and then put your name at ToA editor= and the green template should miraculously appear. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 22:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::Yep, that's all it takes. That goes for any other articles you want to re-approve too. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 12:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::Give the article a look-see to determine if it worked please. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 18:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::Joe, is changing the url link something you could do? Or can I do it? Or is that not kosher? [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 18:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::: OK, I copied the link for the current Draft page into the metadata page for approval. If this is not the correct procedure, please let me know. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 22:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::::: David: Yes, that's exactly right. We should be all set.
| |
| :::::: Milt: It's obviously unnecessary now, but it would have been kosher for you to change the url only if you also became an approving editor. I would have done it using the Approvals Manager account if it had been unquestionably clear which version he intended to nominate, but it is better for approving editors to do this type of thing themselves.
| |
| ::::::--Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 18:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::::: Joe, the reason I asked if it was kosher is that I was the creator of that article and virtually its only contributor. In fact, the reapproval was needed because of changes/additions that I made and I don't think I could sign on as an additional approving editor.[[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 18:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Speech recognition ==
| |
| | |
| While it's not a subspecialty, I have a working knowledge of the subject, and the article seems decent. Beyond fixing the title, it needs citation cleanup, as a number are simply external links while others are just URLs. Can I do that as an approving Editor? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 05:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Okay. I'll see if any of the authors would be interested in cleaning up the links. You could probably do it yourself as an editor, since it is primarily copyediting for stylistic requirements. But if we can find someone else to do it, we don't have to even think about that. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 18:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Does approval of main article include approval of subpages? ==
| |
| | |
| Joe. Peter Schmitt has raised an important issue. The Sturm-Liouville and Associated Legendre functions article have subpages on which are proofs of results on the main page. The question that Peter has is whether approval of the main article includes approval of the subpages? If not, how are subpages approved? Thanks. [[User:Dan Nessett|Dan Nessett]] 02:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :An entire cluster can be approved or just the main article. The problem is the lack of procedures for locking the approved subpages and creating draft spaces. It comes down to a technical problem, from what I understand. This would, I think, be fixed by migrating subpages to namespaces of their own but we'll need to think about implementation. I hope to tackle this as my next big project after the charter is in place. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 19:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :: Probably, for most subpages, approving and locking will not be needed or practical, even if such a possibility is created. But if one wants to relate the approved page with a specific version of a subpage: Wouldn't it be enough to put links to that version into the approved page? [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 23:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::Yes, maybe. That's an interesting idea. Let me think about it. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 23:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::: Good idea, Peter. [[User:Dan Nessett|Dan Nessett]] 23:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Approval of [[Joule-Thomson effect]] due tomorrow ==
| |
| | |
| Joe: Please see comment by Hayford at [[Talk:Joule-Thomson effect]]. The changes made by Hayford were very minor copy edits. If David Volk (the original nominating editor) doesn't change the approval version by tomorrow, is it okay if I do it? I am the author of the article. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 22:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == [[Homeopathy]] ==
| |
| | |
| Hi, Joe, would you take a look at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy/Draft#Re-approval and see what can be done? Thanks! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Anycasting ==
| |
| | |
| I have just nominated [[Anycasting]] for approval. [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 23:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :I did fix a broken link in External Links. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 00:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::Thanks, Peter. Let me know if you need any assistance. It looks like you're in good shape. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 01:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ==[[Great Siege of Scarborough Castle]]==
| |
| Hi - this article is an expanded version of a section of the approved [[Scarborough Castle]] article. I am seeking approval for this one too ([http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Great_Siege_of_Scarborough_Castle&oldid=100587044 this version]) following comments made by Howard on its Talk page. Thanks. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 07:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ==Social capital==
| |
| | |
| I have just nominated [[Social capital]] for approval. I'm going to notify editors in Economics and Politics and invite them to join me. [[User:Roger Lohmann|Roger Lohmann]] 23:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Great! Let me know if you need my help with anything. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 04:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == [[R.E.M.]] ready for nomination for approval ==
| |
| | |
| I did the MediaWiki conversion for this article, [[R.E.M.]]. It seems ready for consideration for approval. Needs Music Workgroup nomination. Will you find a music editor to nominate it? I don't think I can nominate it, as Biology and Health Sciences Editor. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 02:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :[[Led Zeppelin]] has been waiting for approval for more than 18 months. There are no music editors active to approve articles in that workgroup. [[User:Meg Ireland|Meg Ireland]] 04:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::I hope to recruit some soon. I'll do my best as soon after the charter process is complete. --[[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]] 16:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::"I will dance, I will sing, and my laugh shall be gay, I will charm every heart in this crowd I survey." If you succeed, that is.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::Perhaps Meg can suggest some people from the industry. I have mixed feelings about approaching the RIAA, but they are a possible source. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::::Over a year ago I emailed a few of my past teachers as well as some friends along the industry chain, and there wasn't much interest. Most of the responses back were along the lines of how much we pay editors and about article credits. Aleta Curry, lobbied on my behalf to get some editors to try and approve it but under current CZ policy it is not possible for an editor of another workgroup to approve a music article. [[User:Meg Ireland|Meg Ireland]] 23:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::::Situation calls for innovative solution. Since I worked extensively on [[R.E.M.]] as part of wiki-formatting it, I took editorial license, so to speak, and nominated it myself, imposing a two-week review period. On the talk page, our Editor-in-Chief gave it his nod, which embolded me. I'll email the editor-list to seek music cognoscenti who might want to 2nd-3rd the nomination. Suggest someone do the same for [[Led Zeppelin]]. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 20:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::::Anthony, we'll certainly try to find a music editor to approve the article, but we need a ''music'' editor. I don't see where Larry left a note on the talk page. Could you point me to it? --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 23:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::::::Am I missing the whole point of Editorship? How can Anthony, no matter how distinguished an Editor and Author he may be in other fields (and he most certainly is), nominate, in an official capacity, an article about music to be approved? The metadata category clearly says "music" and nothing else. I don't believe that Howard, for instance, who is a Computers Editor and an Engineering Editor, could put his official imprimatur on, say, my tennis article about [[Ray Casey]] and declare it ready for approval on November 15th (if only we could find two Sports Editors to *also* approve it). Am I completely wrong about this, or is Anthony? One of us has to be.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 23:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::::::Hayford, you're absolutely right. I should have been more clear. He ''can't'' nominate it. Coud you, as a constable, remove the nomination? Otherwise I'll do it as Approvals Manager tomorrow. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 23:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::::::::Sure, I'll do it -- if I can figure out *how*! Can't be too hard, I imagine.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 01:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == November 1st reapprovals ==
| |
| | |
| There are two reapprovals coming up soon -- Matt walked me through the last one, so I think I can do them. Please note, however, that *both* these articles have versions as of Sept. 30th that are supposed to be reapproved. There has been extensive editing to both articles since Sept. 30th. I will, however, be reapproving the Sept. 30th versions. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Yes, you should approve the version that is nominated. I suggested on the talk page of both article just after we got three editors that we could move the approval date up, but nobody acted on it. If there have been more edits, then we might have to reapprove ''again'' but if none of the editors update the version to be approved then we'll deal with it later. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 23:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::That's what I thought. Thanks. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 23:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::Okie, they're done, a day late. There are some elements of this reapproval process that I really don't understand, but I eventually got things looking right, I think. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Led Zed ==
| |
| | |
| I *think* I've cleaned up all the crap that got inserted. I changed the status from 0 to 1. I moved one of the Editors from Approved to To Approve. And I managed to delete the Draft page, which was trickier, but it appears to be gone. Right now, in the http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Articles_to_Approve page we have Led Zed showing instead of Led Zed/draft.
| |
| | |
| Better check everything over and then tell me again whether it can be approved or not. Thanks. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 21:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| : I saw that [[Led Zeppelin]] was nominated on Oct. 30 for approval on Oct. 30. Something should happen, either approval or a change of the approval date, or revoking the nomination. (I know, there is charter drafting ... it's just a reminder.) [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::I've screwed up the Approval process somehow by inadvertently deleting the entire Talk page -- and now I can't restore it by a simple Restore -- it's *gone*. I can *find* the missing version but I don't have the power to edit the Special page to restore it. So Matt will have to fix things up. Sorry, eventually it'll be Approved. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::Okay, the article itself is now Approved and Protected. It's the Talk page that is missing. The new Draft page appears to be there all right also. So what Matt has to do is to get the Talk page back, then there are a couple more steps to finish things off. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::I've restored the talk page. I don't know why it wasn't there for you to restore, Hayford, but maybe it had to wait for the server to catch up??? What was the problem with this article in the first place? I thought it was approved? [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 18:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::::Thanks! Well, maybe it was the server being slow, I dunno. The article itself hadn't been approved until just now. I was doing the Approval and somehow deleted the Talk page, then couldn't get it back. Did you have to go to the Special tab to do it? This whole thing has been very weird! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::::Okay, everything is fixed up and finished now. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == [[Henry's law]] isstill in need of re-approval ==
| |
| | |
| Joe, the [[Henry's law]] article is still in need of re-approval. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 07:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Good catch Milt, there's no date in the Metadata so it doesn't show up on the list... [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 13:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::Matt, I've made a number of revisions and corrections since the last re-approval. I don't understand your comment about no date in the Metadata ... I can't nominate it since I am the author and I made the changes. The last re-approval was made by David Volk many months ago. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 05:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::Wow, Milt, I could have sworn I saw David's name in the ToA spot without a date. That is not the case. So forget everything I said, as I assume (vicariously) that you would like Joe to contact David for you and ask him to take a look. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 18:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Complex number ==
| |
| | |
| Could you comment on this, please: [[Talk:Complex number/Draft#correcting approved version]] ? [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 00:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == [[Vapor-compression refrigeration]] has been ready for approval for quite some time. Can you help? ==
| |
| | |
| Although the article was ready for approval many months ago, I just added a new section on the history of vapor-compression refrigeration, improved the two images, added a number of references and wiki links as well as a number of minor copy edits. The article really deserves to be approved now.Can you help find a nominator or nominators? Thanks, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 07:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Neighbourhood (topology) ==
| |
| | |
| I have nominated [[Neighbourhood (topology)]] for approval; the final day is, today (May 6). Is it needed to inform you (which I am doing), or could I just wait? [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 18:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Hi, Boris, I'm a Constable who does the actual Approvals. It's my understanding, or at least from what I've seen in the three years that I've been here, that articles proposed for Approval by an Editor such as yourself are always asked to be approved, oh, two weeks later than the date on which the Editor makes the initial request. This gives time for other members to look over the article one last time and to make suggestions. In other words, since you proposed this today, the 6th, you would ask that it be approved on, say, the 20th. I don't know if there's an actual *rule* about this, but I certainly don't recall any other article being nominated for Approval on that very day. Cheers! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::Hi Hayford. My initial request was made on May 4 (the "now" parameter) with the final date May 6 (the "date" parameter). Till then, Peter Schmitt did some (quite small) changes; this is why the "now" parameter is now May 6.
| |
| ::It is written on the [[CZ:Approval Process]] page: "That "ToApprove" metadata section will be marked with a date, usually several days to a week from the date that it is placed - but at least 24 hours. (That rule is to allow copy edits and final development. A longer lead time is appropriate for articles that are complex and may need the intensity of scrutiny that occurs with nomination to be properly completed. For articles that are already complete, a short lead time is appropriate.)"
| |
| ::Thus, two weeks are not recommended; and one week is recommended for "the intensity of scrutiny" which is not needed here, I believe; "a short lead time is appropriate" is what I had in mind.
| |
| ::The article is rather technical; I do not expect many attention from non-mathematicians. Active mathematicians are few (unfortunately), and we all did already look at this article (rewritten by Peter about half a year ago and not changed since then).
| |
| ::Surely, perfection is unreachable; and this article, hopefully, will be improved. However, why do it just now, in fuss and bustle? When someone will get some idea what to do more, we'll make Version 2, but probably it will take months (if not years). Meanwhile it is more important to approve more articles, I think so. [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 19:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::: (edit conflict) Hayford, it is, of course, not important whether the approval is delayed or not, but Boris nominated it two days ago. This is a short period, but within the limits mentioned on [[CZ:Approval Process]] (at least 24 hours, several days to a week). Two weeks is nowhere required. (I used 1 week for [[Anycasting]] and 1 day for [[Complex number]]. This is not contested like [[Homeopathy]], and will -- unfortunately -- not draw attention.) But, anyway, a few more days do not matter, either. We do not want to hurry you. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 19:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::And, in addition: quick implementation of many suggestions from many authors tends to make an article somewhat mosaic, which is usual in WP but not desirable here in CZ. [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 19:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::::Good arguments, Boris, and I hadn't realized that a week was supposed to be the upper limit. But I will wait for Joe Quick to rule on this. As to *why* I don't want to do it today, or even tomorrow, for that matter, it is because to do the actual Approval process is a time-consuming, extremely precise operation by the Constable, not to mention "tedious". If I were to do it today, and then tomorrow someone comes along and has a major difference of opinion about the article, then the whole thing would have to be done over. A Constable can go in and change a typo or spelling error but even, say, the removal of one sentence and the addition of another, would necessitate another Approval process. And, since this article has already waited a couple of years to be Approved, I don't think another week will matter. Moreover, according to the Metadata information that I can see, you asked for Approval on "now = 11:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)" -- that, of course, is even less than 24 hours. So we'll see what Joe says.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::Sorry, I did explain in detail (see above) why "now" is now May 6 (but was May 4; just check the history of the metadata). It seems you not quite read me, and in addition, you are not inclined to believe me?? [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 20:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::"Major difference of opinion"? The right to remove the template is given to experts (math editors); we are few; no one of us removed it, no one intended to, and after all, no one has the right to protest after the approval, right? I would be very ashamed in such case, no less than you would be tired; but this case is quite improbable. [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 20:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::And, as Peter wrote, "Complex number" was approved in one day; a precedent... [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 20:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| (unindent) Another two edit conflicts -- this is a lively discussion :-) <br>
| |
| This dispute about "now" indicates a flaw in the approval mechanics: It is requested to update it when the version is changed, but is meant to indicate the date when "the template is '''added'''" -- it cannot do both! Of course, the date when the template is added can be seen in the history of the Metadata. But, on the other hand, it is nowhere stated that the process has to be completed immediately. It will be done when the approving Constable feels ready ... <br>
| |
| Boris, I agree with your arguments. But a few days more really don't matter. And if it satisfies Hayford: why not be patient. He will not forget to do it. (Complex number was a very special case, though) --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 20:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :OK; it is far not the first time that I observe that rules/procedures designed for all hardly fit mathematicians (and even programmers; I was a programmer 10 years in USSR, and we were formally restricted by rules for all engineers; it was both terrible and ridiculous). [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 20:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::I don't see any need to hurry the approval process, but neither is there any real reason to delay approval if the editors agree that the article is ready now. If everyone is on board, go ahead and complete the mechanics whenever you're ready. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 20:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::Thank you! [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 20:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::It is heartwarming to see a controversy settled so amicably. Now, Joe, if only you could find someone to nominate [[Vapor-compression refrigeration]] for approval ... I hope. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 23:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::::I have my own comment about this in the Forums at http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,3160.msg29083.html#msg29083 [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Countable set ==
| |
| | |
| I have just nominated [[Countable set]] for approval. [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 17:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| In the sentence "A set which is not countable is called uncountable." the "which" should be "that". [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 05:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| : I have changed the word. In the meantime I have learned about it from you ... :-) But why didn't you make the change yourself, Hayford? (Or, use the talk page of the article?) --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 08:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::Because I'm a Constable who may end up Approving the article. And I dunno who reads the Talk pages, anyhow. After the last argument with Boris, I'm reverting to what I used to do -- I wouldn't approve anything until Joe gives the formal go ahead. Matt can do as he pleases, of course. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 15:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::: You mean, you would not be allowed to do the approval after copyediting the article's language? And after a Workgroup Editor has accepted this edit by adapting the version number? If this is true, then it is another example of exaggerated rules that make life too difficult here. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 15:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::Thanks for taking care of this one in my absence. My internet connection has become really unreliable lately. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 14:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Geometric sequence ==
| |
| | |
| I have just nominated [[Geometric sequence]] for approval. [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 21:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Great! Once the charter process is finally wrapped up, I want to work on boosting the rate at which we are approving articles. Of course, we need good articles to approve and good people to approve them. I'm glad you're finding approvable material in mathematics. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 14:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::I am glad to see that our vectors are nearly collinear. My attitude to approval is expressed in [[User:Boris_Tsirelson#On_approval]]. [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 20:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Pro-democracy movement in Burma ==
| |
| | |
| Hello. I am curious about whether the article on the [[pro-democracy movement in Burma]] would be fit for approval. It's been sufficiently developed, but I'm not sure on what the difference is between an approved and a developed article. There is no need to sweat - if it's not ready it shouldn't be approved (and I'm too lazy to improve it). Last time when I tried to get an article approved, on [[Dokdo]], I received a lot of help, which I'm still thankful for. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 03:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC))
| |
| | |
| :Since it's a sensitive political issue, this one is going to be harder. I'll give it attention when I can, but a lot of my time is being by other things at the moment. You could start by contacting some of the social science editors. -Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 14:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::Ok thank you. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 04:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC))
| |
| | |
| :::I don't mean to discourage you. In fact, you could complete the entire process without me; my role is just to help get things rolling. I don't think we have any editors who specialize in that part of the world but Martin Baldwin Edwards or Roger Lohmann might be able to provide some insight, even if they don't nominate it for approval. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 14:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::Oh I wasn't discouraged. As I've said previously I'm too lazy to improve it much if it isn't good enough to be approved in its current state. I'll just ask an editor to give me a simple yes or no and move on with it. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 15:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC))
| |
| | |
| == Covariance ==
| |
| | |
| I have just nominated [[Covariance]] for approval. [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 18:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Set theory ==
| |
| | |
| [[Set theory]] is waiting for the approval to be finalized. [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 17:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| As far as I understand, Hayford Peirce is waiting for Joe Quick to say to go ahead. [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 06:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Sorry, I haven't had internet access for a couple of weeks. I'm still working on getting that sorted out. You '''''do not''''' need me to sign off on anything if all is in order. I'm here to help when I'm needed but not to control the approval process. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 19:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| After two days: not frozen yet. [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 11:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| After four days: not frozen (yet?). [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 16:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| : Have you tried contacting a Constable about this? It is their responsibility to perform the approval process, not the Approvals Manager. --[[User:Chris Key|Chris Key]] 18:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::Sorry, I do not know the procedure. Should I choose a constable myself? Can every constable do it? Till now it appeared enough for me, to leave a message here. Please advise. [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 18:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::Only Constables can Approve a proposed article. But they have to be satisfied first that all the conditions have been met. In times past, I myself (one of the two active Constables) have generally waited to get an OK from Joe Quick before proceeding if I had *ANY* doubts at all about which version should be done (or not done). In this particular case, there are people making changes, reverting them, talking about them, etc. Until all of that has settled, I will not be Approving this article -- unless Joe Quick specifically tells to me Approve such-and-such version of such-and-such date. I have, however, a suggestion: Change the proposed date of Approval, to, oh, June 5th, then ask *everyone* who has made any contributions or changes or suggestions in the last ten days to *please* discuss them on the Talk page *before* making any further changes. And then, if they *do* make appropriate changes, please change your Metadata in consequence. (The date of the version to be approved.) If, on the 5th, say, the dust has settled, nothing has been added or subtracted for he last three days, then I will Approve it. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::Thank you for your generosity. :-) How nice to be an author, not editor. [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 19:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::::Please see my comments on [[Talk:Set_theory#No_more_changes_for_this_approval|the articles talk page]]. --[[User:Chris Key|Chris Key]] 20:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::: Just realised nobody answered your questions Boris. Yes, any Constable can do it. Officially, according to the [[CZ:Approval Process|Approval Process]], "''To ask a Constable to "make it official," simply send an e-mail to constables@citizendium.org''". Alternatively, you can just choose a Constable and leave a note on their talk page. --[[User:Chris Key|Chris Key]] 00:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::: Thank you. [[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 06:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :I just finally got internet connectivity back today. Has this been resolved or is it still an open question? --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 23:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :: Set theory, and the description of the approval mechanics has been revised based on this. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 23:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Cryptography ==
| |
| | |
| [[Cryptography]] is nominated for approval by Howard and me. I have restricted myself carefully to copy edits to avoid conflict of interest. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 21:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Peter, I don't think you fully understood: I will Approve this article ONLY when Howard's name is GONE from the list of approving Editors, not with it just being moved to a secondary place. I thought I had made that clear a long time ago, but apparently not. You archived all the earlier discussion about this, which I think was rather hasty.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::While I'm not making a major issue of it, Hayford, I think this is an incorrect interpretation. Admittedly, the 2-editor case is not well handled in the procedures, and is somewhat contradictory.
| |
| | |
| ::If you look at the green notice, Peter is shown as nominating approval and I am shown as supporting approval. To me, it looks better to have a completely uninvolved Editor as the nominator, but also to have other editors support nomination. How is it that three involved Editor or one uninvolved Editor is good, but an involved and an uninvolved is bad? Could there be two uninvolved nominators?
| |
| | |
| ::This will have to be pinned down by the Editorial Council, whenever there's life with the Committee. Still, I think you are being picky about a matter that is not controversial. Perhaps you could see if you can get unanimous consent from the remaining active members of the EC.
| |
| | |
| ::"Controversial", to me, are Military articles when there isn't a second active Editor, but have been waiting for months or years. When I can make a reasonable case in my own conscience, I've been adding History or Engineering to some of those. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::As I see it, one uninvolved Editor (in this case Peter) is enough to approve, and whether there are other Editors to join the approval or not, does not matter. So there is no reason to remove Howard. On the contrary — I think we should actually encourage more Editors to join in (as long as they have read the article in question and can indeed judge its quality, which is the case here). --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 17:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::In the discussions that Peter archived, we talked about how much Howard did, or didn't contribute, a couple of years ago and whether he should be allowed to put his Editor imprint on it. Matt felt there should be at least TWO other editors if Howard remained on the list. I concur. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::::I agree with Daniel Mietchen. Since Peter (as an uninvolved Editor) is sufficient for approval, it does not matter if Howard's name remains as a co-nominator. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 19:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::::: To put an end to the discussion I just removed Howard. However, I do not understand why it is necessary. But he will not mind. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 19:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| If there is one uninvolved editor on the nomination, there is no problem with also having one involved editor too. There is no reason to remove Howard's name. Howard, feel free to add it back in. Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to participate in any ongoing discussion very effectively: I've been cut off from regular internet access and am experiencing, um, technical difficulties getting it re-established. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 19:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :We were discussing this on the archived page, and Matt, as Assistant Chief Constable, ruled that if one nominating Editor (Howard) had worked on the article (since there in no clear rule about how much or how little is too much or OK) then we would need TWO other Editors to nominate it. I thought then, to make things easier, that Howard would simply withdraw his name, leaving Peter as the sole nominating editor. But I think that Joe, in his above comment, is still begging the essential question: How much can a nominating Editor be involved with an article and still have the right to be a nominating Editor? If Howard had actually contributed 95% of the material, could he still be a nominating Editor because Peter came along and became the *principle* nominating Editor and reduced Howard to second place? I myself think the answer is a clear NO. And Matt agreed with me. The question becomes, then, at what point *can* a nominating Editor be a contributing Editor? Since none of these questions were answered, that's why I held off Approving the article. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 21:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :: Consider the following case: Three Editors collaborate on an article. Together they may approve the article. But -- if you are right -- no one of them is allowed to nominate it to give the others the opportunity to join in. How could the article be approved? Thus, I think, the answer can only be: Any Editor (involved or not) may nominate, but approval is only possible if two involved or at least one uninvolved Editor joins the nomination. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 22:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::Peter, this is how I always viewed it. An uninvovled editor can nominate or three involved editors. Ideally we would have three editors for all approvals but realistically this would not allow most workgroups to have any approved articles. At the time this represented a compromise to allow us to function with a low number of editors. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 23:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::That is how I understand it too. But this does not mean that an article cannot be approved by two editors. If one or the other of them has not been involved in the creation of the article, then that editor ''could'' approve the article alone. There is no reason to exclude the other editor just because s/he took part in writing the article. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 01:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
| |
