User talk:Raymond Arritt: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Nereo Preto
(Any approvals?)
imported>John Stephenson
({{NoResponse}})
 
(16 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ewelcome}} [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 03:20, 15 June 2007 (CDT)
{{NoResponse}}


== Glad to see you back ==


==Welcome!==
Hi Raymond,
{{awelcome}} See [[CZ:Discipline Workgroups]] to add yourself to whichever author workgroups you choose. -- [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 18:20, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
this is just to say that I am glad to see you contribute again. With a smile, --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 22:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks Daniel. I'm mostly here to look at [[Homeopathy]] as a sort of test case on how Citizendium handles controversial articles. If it gets fixed then I may work on the project more regularly. While I'm here, I thought I'd clean up some of the most egregiously awful stuff in [[Global warming]]. [[User:Raymond Arritt|Raymond Arritt]] 00:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


::Well, don't forget that all we can do at the moment is to "fix" the *draft* version of Homeopathy. Once that's fixed, then we can see about getting it to replace the Approved article. So first things first.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 01:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


{{Workgroup introduction}}
:::To avoid the potential for misunderstandings I don't think anyone should make substantive changes to the draft without first receiving guidance from the EIC. [[User:Raymond Arritt|Raymond Arritt]] 16:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


== Images for Global warming ==
::::Larry seems to be MIA these days but is probably lurking around in the neighborhood. In any case, "substantive" changes should never be made to *any* article without at least some discussion ahead of time. The problem is defining "substantive" to everyone's satisfaction. But if we can't make *some* changes to the draft version of Homeopathy, then that means it's just as locked in stone as the Approved article, which is NOT meant to be the case. People are free to work on it at any time.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


Dear Raymond,
== Glad to see you back, Pt. 2 ==
thanks for your terrific job in [[Global warming]]! We were desperately looking for a real climatologist, and here you are!
Well, many thanks, it's very nice to have some feedback and appreciation. Stick around for a while! [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 06:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I received a message from [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] which I copy-and-paste from my talk page:


''If you wish to use images from IPCC reports, you can point me to the links for the images and I will see if they can be used of if they of such quality that we should seek permission, which I'd do.  —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 01:05, 3 August 2007 (CDT)''
== Citizendium charter drafting commitee nomination ==


I suppose you might find this useful, if you are still working on the article.
Hi Raymond,
You've been nominated by a fellow Citizendium member to be a candidate for election to the Citizendium charter drafting committee.


Cheers, --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 01:58, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
If you haven't been following the discussion in the forums, we're getting ready to establish a charter for Citizendium that outlines the project's goals, ideals, and basic structure.  To get the process moving, we put together a plan for electing a group of Citizens to compose a draft of the charter, which will then be submitted for community review.  You can find more about the plan [[CZ:Charter_drafting_committee|here]].


:Oh, my. I was away for a while and this thing got away from me.  [[User:Raymond Arritt|Raymond Arritt]] 08:35, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
You've been nominated by another Citizen to be a candidate for election to that committee.  The next step is up to you: you may either accept or decline the nomination by going [[CZ:Charter_drafting_committee/Nominations|here]] and following the instructions at the top of the page.


== Global warming & "dispute watch" ==
If you have any questions, just let me know. --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 14:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


Dr. Arritt, we haven't "e-met" yet, but let me just add that I'm very glad that a real expert is on hand to guide [[global warming]].
== Charter drafting nomination ==


I should explain what I did on the talk page, however.  We are very motivated to find a way to keep talk pages on controversial topics from descending into the usual sort of Internet "flame fests."  Toward this end, we've studied how to prevent this "edit warring"--see [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1117.0.html]--and out of that, I've produced a ''tentative'' solution, involving something I'm calling a "Dispute Watch."  If an article seems particularly controversial, and people are constantly engaging themselves in the controversy, instead of looking precisely at how the article should read, we will be able to say that the article is under dispute watch.  This means that, after an article enters dispute watch, all ''argumentative'' comments have to be addressed directly to some issue about the wording of the article.  For details, see: [[CZ:Dispute Watch]].
Hi Raymond,<br />You were nominated by a fellow Citizendium member to be a candidate for a position on the Citizendium charter drafting committee, but you haven't indicated whether you want to accept or decline.  To learn more about what the committee is all about, you can go to [[CZ:Charter_drafting_committee|the page that describes the process]].  To indicate that you either accept or decline the nomination to participate in the process as a committee member, you should visit the [[CZ:Charter_drafting_committee/Nominations|subpage for nominations]]; there are instructions on what to do on that page.<br />Thanks much!<br />--[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 03:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 
Well, it just so happens that the very first person who acted contrary to the dispute watch in any case was...you!  Please don't take this the wrong way--and please help us to evaluate the success of the "dispute watch" initiative.
 
What I think I'll do is simply move all of the pre-dispute watch comments to the archive, so people aren't tempted to reply to them. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:11, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
 
:Hi Larry, I guess it's always a distinction to be first at something!  I've been away from CZ for a while and was unaware of the "dispute watch" initiative. Looking at the "dispute watch" page I find it rather confusing, and in all honesty believe it will be unworkable. I'll stay away for a while until things cool down. [[User:Raymond Arritt|Raymond Arritt]] 10:07, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
 
Please don't--your input particularly at this stage is essential.  Initiating a dispute watch is intended to immediately cool things down.  I'm disappointed that the dispute watch page is confusing, but I accept it--I'll have to do something about that.  Also, I admit that the concept may indeed be unworkable; but maybe not.  The intention, in any case, is to ensure that you aren't having to battle with ideologues and people who simply want to argue, not work on the article.  Again, the hope is that this will instantly cool things down; let's see!
 
::Further, when do know when it is unnecessary to have the so-called "dispute watch" and how should content disputes be handled whilst not under "dispute watch"? [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 10:39, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
 
Only articles that have [[:Category:Dispute Watch]] attached to them are under dispute watch.  Otherwise, content disputes are handled the way polite adults handle disputes; there is no formal process, beyond the Constabulary stepping in, as necessary, to rein in incivility. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 10:53, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
 
All right, I have worked some more on [[CZ:Dispute Watch]].  I ''think'' it should be a bit clearer now.  Reviewing it, I do have to apologize--it really ''was'' unclear.  Probably still is, but it's perhaps a bit better. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:39, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
 
Just wanted to let you know, Dr. Arritt, that ''you were right,'' and I was wrong; the Dispute Watch experiment was a failure.  [[Global warming]] is officially no longer under dispute watch. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 10:25, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
 
:This is a case where I'm not pleased to have been right. I think that something in the spirit of dispute watch could be useful, so let's keep thinking. Maybe "special oversight" or the like, where editors/stewards put the article high on their radar. [[User:Raymond Arritt|Raymond Arritt]] 10:12, 11 August 2007 (CDT)
::I think that if people adhere to the professionalism ideals that Citizendium strives for, there'd be little need for excessive oversight. If there is a genuine behavioral issue, I believe the constabulary will be able to dictate the necessary actions. If there is a genuine content issue, the editor(s) should be able to resolve the issue. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 12:56, 11 August 2007 (CDT)
Yes, one might well think that, but it hasn't been our experience that problems can be uniformly avoided.  The central problem here is that, sometimes, pests can be perfectly polite and hence not "covered" by Constabulary-enforced rules.  It's definitely a problem. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:04, 11 August 2007 (CDT)
 
== Any approvals? ==
 
Hi Raymond, do you believe is there any Earth Sciences article worth our attention, i.e., close to be ready for approval? My guess is, no, we don't have such articles. [[Global warming]] actually looks quite good, but not nearly as good as that on Wikipedia.
 
If you got the same idea on our article's average status -that is, far from approval-, may I ask you why, in your opinion? Should we do something to make things going better?
 
Cheers, --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 06:31, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 09:44, 14 February 2021

NOTICE: This user is unlikely to respond to questions or comments placed here.
This could be because of any of the following:
*Their registered email address is no longer working (or is rejecting Citizendium mail);
*The account has been closed;
*The user is otherwise inactive on the wiki.
The user may remove this template at any time.

Glad to see you back

Hi Raymond, this is just to say that I am glad to see you contribute again. With a smile, --Daniel Mietchen 22:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel. I'm mostly here to look at Homeopathy as a sort of test case on how Citizendium handles controversial articles. If it gets fixed then I may work on the project more regularly. While I'm here, I thought I'd clean up some of the most egregiously awful stuff in Global warming. Raymond Arritt 00:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, don't forget that all we can do at the moment is to "fix" the *draft* version of Homeopathy. Once that's fixed, then we can see about getting it to replace the Approved article. So first things first.... Hayford Peirce 01:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
To avoid the potential for misunderstandings I don't think anyone should make substantive changes to the draft without first receiving guidance from the EIC. Raymond Arritt 16:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Larry seems to be MIA these days but is probably lurking around in the neighborhood. In any case, "substantive" changes should never be made to *any* article without at least some discussion ahead of time. The problem is defining "substantive" to everyone's satisfaction. But if we can't make *some* changes to the draft version of Homeopathy, then that means it's just as locked in stone as the Approved article, which is NOT meant to be the case. People are free to work on it at any time.... Hayford Peirce 17:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you back, Pt. 2

Well, many thanks, it's very nice to have some feedback and appreciation. Stick around for a while! Ro Thorpe 06:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Citizendium charter drafting commitee nomination

Hi Raymond, You've been nominated by a fellow Citizendium member to be a candidate for election to the Citizendium charter drafting committee.

If you haven't been following the discussion in the forums, we're getting ready to establish a charter for Citizendium that outlines the project's goals, ideals, and basic structure. To get the process moving, we put together a plan for electing a group of Citizens to compose a draft of the charter, which will then be submitted for community review. You can find more about the plan here.

You've been nominated by another Citizen to be a candidate for election to that committee. The next step is up to you: you may either accept or decline the nomination by going here and following the instructions at the top of the page.

If you have any questions, just let me know. --Joe Quick 14:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Charter drafting nomination

Hi Raymond,
You were nominated by a fellow Citizendium member to be a candidate for a position on the Citizendium charter drafting committee, but you haven't indicated whether you want to accept or decline. To learn more about what the committee is all about, you can go to the page that describes the process. To indicate that you either accept or decline the nomination to participate in the process as a committee member, you should visit the subpage for nominations; there are instructions on what to do on that page.
Thanks much!
--Joe Quick 03:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Raymond_Arritt&oldid=15002"