User talk:D. Matt Innis/Archive 2

From Citizendium
Jump to: navigation, search

June 13, 2007

Hey Matt, great idea having this template on your talk page for all the links. I'm inspired to do the same :) Chris Day (Talk) 13:03, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


Question from new author

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

Have fun and Happy editing!

--Matt Innis (Talk) 20:07, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the welcome¸ Matt! In fact I have just completed my first contribution to Citizendium and really enjoyed writing it

(see )

Yes Matt Let there be Life. Just do it now . see Life Talk . David Tribe 17:58, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

I am wondering if I have filled out the CV live tags template properly here

and would also like to find out how to submit the article to the approval process¸ as I believe it is more or less close to completion. Your help will be appreciated. Edna Spennato 08:29, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Question re on-line CV

When I requested to become an author, the CZ response mentioned that authors need an "on-line CV". Even though I was accepted, that term is still unclear. Can the CZ authorship request response be clearer?

What is an "on-line CV"? Thanks, --Tim McCully 18:32, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

I now understand what a CV is. My recollection is that the signup procedure was not clear what a CV was, nor that it was only necessary for editorship applications. A pretty daunting sort of resume to have for an ordinary guy like me, being a non-academic. I would be interested to see an example of a non-academic person's Curriculum Vitae. Surely it isn't intended to only accept academics as qualified editors? There must be other professions who might be qualified. Thanks ! --Tim McCully 22:24, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

Question re editorship

On my user welcome page,, it indicates that I was accepted as an editor:

Welcome to the Citizendium! We're very glad you've joined us as an editor. Most of your functions you share with authors, so you'll probably want to read how to get started as an author.

However, below that you indicated that I need to apply for editorship. Which is correct?

Thanks, Mike

Thank you

I just wanted to say thank you for the welcome message to Citizendium! --Maurice Ornelas (Talk) 11:47, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Matt, I just wanted to add my thanks for the nice welcome, also !--Tim McCully 03:35, 1 April 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, I also agree! Count me in as the "me three"! Plus not to mention for helping me to set up my recently created userpage yesterday for the very first time into this compendium and your e-mail reply too! THANKS A LOT, MATT!!! :-) --Peter Loo ZW 13:30, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Big O

Hi, good question. Actually, I've just observed that this article, as it stands, is somewhat misleading and didn't thought about a global solution. Now, I propose

  • moving "Big O notation" to "Complexity of algorithms" (would appreciate comments from computer workgroup members). Just look at "see also" section at the bottom the article - "complexity theory" is where it really belongs in.
  • deleting the resulting redirect "Big O notation". This will be something different.

The point is that the present article is not about the notation itself but about its (very) particular application. It is not a different meaning of the word nor a specific case, it is just a particular use of the same general idea. Moreover, the article does not _explain_ the subject (i.e. the title), it just _applies_it_. It gives some detailed examples of determining complexities of some algorithms -- and this seems to be the main theme there.

Okay, I will take Robert's response to mean that "computers" can use this article, especially since it is written for computers, so I will move it. If Computers wants it renamed later, that will be fine. AlekStos, if you would take care of creating something for the blanked Big O notation, that would be very much appreciated. --Matt Innis (Talk) 12:31, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

IMHO a classical disambiguation does not apply. A better solution would be to have general "Big O notation" article (to write from scratch!) with a paragraph which describes typical use in computer science and the pointer {{main|complexity theory}} + possibly a link in the 'see also' section (just in case: what we have in the present "Big O" article looks already too long (and developing!) to be directly incorporated into the future "Big O"). --AlekStos 16:30, 25 March 2007 (CDT)

Of course I can clean it up (in the BigCleanup sense) and tweak some details if necessary. I could also start a new stub on the actual 'Big O notation'. But to really develop 'Complexity of algorithms' we would need some computer guys, of course. --AlekStos 00:48, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
Sure. I'm writing Greg Martin with a suggestion to leave a comment here (the other math editor have never been active). --AlekStos 08:28, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

present Robert Tito |  Talk  12:13, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

Robert, does Alekstos' suggestion of moving the page Big O notation to Complexity of algorithms work for the computer sciences group? --Matt Innis (Talk) 12:17, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

(moved from my talk --A.S.) Big O is a standard way to solve equations in physics and chemistry by approximation. So only computers or mathematics will not suffice. Robert Tito |  Talk  12:13, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

This seems to support my proposition of moving. We shall have a "gateway" article describing the general idea and explaining the notation itself, and then a few sections describing particular applications with links to specialized articles. All off this is too much to be contained in a single piece of text. --AlekStos 12:21, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

I will take Robert's response to mean they do want this article in Computers, so I will make this move. AlekStos, if you would take care of the new Big O notation article that would be very much appreciated. These are the moves I will be making:

  • moving "Big O notation" to "Complexity of algorithms" (would appreciate comments from computer workgroup members). Just look at "see also" section at the bottom the article - "complexity theory" is where it really belongs in.
  • deleting the resulting redirect "Big O notation". This will be something different.

--Matt Innis (Talk) 12:34, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. Indeed, technically, I could have done it (i.e. create a new page and blank Big O). But after the BigVandalism era page moves are generally blocked. And without proper moving (by the "move" tab) the history of edits would be "lost". Anyway, consultation was a good thing. I'll develop a few lines in new Big O. --AlekStos 13:00, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

To delete

Matt see this. -Versuri 12:38, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

Got it, good job;) --Matt Innis (Talk) 12:48, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

THIS however slowed you down


WUSSUP fella?

Chiro approval

See - Stephen Ewen 21:13, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

I'm fine, except I think we should lose the picture. In context, the legend does not help so much - it's still not so clear, you have to read the legend carefully - and the picture isn't so good to start with. We will get great pictures for the next edition. Are you sure the chiropractor picture you had before is copyrighted? Nancy Sculerati 12:43, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

Done. I think I did all the mechanics right! Stephen Ewen 13:27, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

Account renaming

Hello Matt, thank you very much for creating my account and for your welcoming message. I´d like to point out to you, though, that my first name has an accent mark: it´s José and not Jose. I was wondering if it is possible to rename my account to José Leonardo Andrade, with the accent in the "e". Thank you. --Jose Leonardo Andrade 06:55, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

Matt, I have these accents ready, want me to do it? Robert Tito |  Talk 

I got it Rob, Thanks! Though any hints are greatly appreciated:) --Matt Innis (Talk) 08:47, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

José Leonardo Andrade, mâñàñá

Now what kind of help was that:) --Matt Innis (Talk) 08:54, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

Matt, in Windows Go to Start > Run > and type charmap and use the characters. Also, make sure your email programis sett to allow html and copy and paste names with special characters from their email. Stephen Ewen 15:12, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
Now that was helpful, thanks Steve.. see Rob, that is how to be helpful:) --Matt Innis (Talk) 18:38, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

Well, I Appreciate a lot the opportunity you have given me.I will collaborate with whatever is needed, and I will potentially use the site to improve my skills. Once again thank you for the opportunity.

Hi again, I´m already in the José Leonardo Andrade account, I think you can delete the other account, please. There was some problems as far as changing the password (the system would´t save preferences), but everything is now ok. Now that I´m here, I´d like to ask you if we can upload images that have a Creative Commons licence; I´m talking about those licences that allow derivate works and commercial use, for example and you find on the Flickr website. --José Leonardo Andrade 10:15, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

Ok-take out picture, I'll tell Steve. I think it looks very good, anyway it's a better article, and once we find the right pictures-or get copyright releases- it will look great too. Nancy Sculerati 13:35, 28 March 2007 (CDT)


Sorry, Why did you Delete the image?the Rene_Levesque one --Dereck Blouin-Perry

template for workgroup education

Do you think it will be useful for people who are actively writing but have not joined a workgroup or are not adding workgroup categories to articles? We could place this on certain people's usert talk pages. Feel free to edit it and please make a comment on the talk page if you are able. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 21:56, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

What do you think about the sentence I added to the template to try and incorporate the table? Is it understandable? Try to get some more input from other constables if you can. I don't want to start using it before I get a feel about what the constables think. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 16:41, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

Athanasios Asimakopulos

His correct full name is Athanasios Asimakopulos. He is best known simply as "Asimakopulos" or "A. Asimakopulos", but feel free to use the full name "Athanasios Asimakopulos" if that is CZ policy. Thanks.

J. R. Campos 22:12, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

Cafe au lait skin patches

Hi, I found this page, Cafe au lait skin patches. The person who started the article asks someone to add the accent mark to "café". Since only constables can move pages, I request that you move the page to Café au lait skin patches - I think you now know how to make accents! :) Thank you. --José Leonardo Andrade 09:23, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Macromolecular chemistry

I just noticed there is a mess up on this page. It appears to be an approved article since there is a draft version, however, there is no draft talk page and no approval template on the article. Strangely the edit hitory of the talk page is missing too. This suggest that the talk page history may well have been moved to a draft talk page. So was the draft talk page deleted? Do you know anything about this pages history? Chris Day (Talk) 10:20, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

After a little more searching I found that it was actually you that created the draft talk page. See this edit. So it has definitely been deleted. Not sure why? But I do know that the edit history of the talk page was lost in the process. Chris Day (Talk) 10:31, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
I think Jacob Jensen restored the talk page with a cut and paste. See this edit. I assume that page was protected so does he have sysop powers, and if so maybe he deleted the draft talk page? I'm a bit lost here, was there a decision to revoke its approved status, and if so we should back track more accurately so we do not lose the talk page history. Also the draft version of the article should be deleted too. Or if this is a mistake we need to get it back to looking like an approved article. Sorry for dumping this on you. Chris Day (Talk) 10:37, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
I came across the Macromolecular Chemistry article as part of my cleanup project but don't think I did anything funky to the talk page. As far as I know, all I did was add a few concerns (like the incorrect definition of macromolecule) and the Activity box as required by the Big Cleanup. I'm confused about the statement, also - there are several references that the article is "approved" but it doesn't appear to be tagged as such. On the basis of my comments at the talk page, my opinion is that this particular page is in substantial need of revision before it meets approval standards. Jacob Jensen 12:44, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
And i agree with your assessment, however, the fact that the article Macromolecular chemistry/Draft exists suggests that it was an approved article at one time. I'm not sure what happened before you arrived. It is possible the the approval process was initiated but not fully completed (hence no approval tag?). Possibly Matt will know more? Jacob, I'd encourage you to make your changes and we could start a biological macromolecule page to completment the chemistry. Chris Day (Talk) 12:58, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Physical chemistry

OK, we have the same issues with this article as with Macromolecular chemistry. The fact that the article Physical chemistry/Draft exists suggests that it was an approved article at one time. Yet, the draft talk page is gone (deleted never existed?) and the history for the article talk page is missing. Chris Day (Talk) 13:37, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

OK i went to look through the deletion log, noticed a lot of recent vandalism and thought that might be the problem. Apparently not though. The problem edits go back to 23 rd March.
23:21, 23 March 2007 Stephen Ewen (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Physical chemistry/Draft" (content was: '==Approval area====Discussions for Version 1.1==' (and the only contributor was 'David Tribe'))
23:21, 23 March 2007 Stephen Ewen (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Physical chemistry"
23:19, 23 March 2007 Stephen Ewen (Talk contribs) deleted "Physical chemistry" (to recreate)
23:18, 23 March 2007 Stephen Ewen (Talk contribs) deleted "Macromolecular chemistry" (to recreate)
23:17, 23 March 2007 Stephen Ewen (Talk contribs) deleted "Talk:Macromolecular chemistry/Draft" (to recreate)

I'll mention thi On Stephen's talk page too so we can get his input. Chris Day (Talk) 13:46, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

I honestly don't remember what was going on. Stephen Ewen 23:22, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Re: ToApprove (Gilad_Atzmon)

My apologies...I've moved the tag to the talk page. --Tom Gersic 14:54, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

RE: Whoa Maurice!

Yes, you're right! Larry Sanger had earlier addressed this issue to me and I had stopped. If you think deleting those articles is best, then I do understand. I only have some state and city articles that are about a few sentences long that I was planning on revamping them A.S.A.P. Not sure of which articles in mind that I could suggest to you for speedy deletion. I guess it is your pick. I'll tag them for speedy deletion. --Maurice Ornelas 17:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)


Hey Matt, could you go to Barbara McClintock and change the approval template to {{approved|editor=David Tribe|group=Biology|abc = McClintock, Barbara}} for the reasons outlined at Template:Approved. I made the changes to the approval template a while back but it did not get implemented. I think she is our only biographical approved article to date, so no others need to be adjusted. Chris Day (Talk) 02:40, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Got it. --Matt Innis (Talk) 11:47, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Critical views of chiropractic

Hey Matt, as we have been through 2 approvals of Chiropractic, could you find it in your heart to finish approval for critical views of chiropractic? Look it over again please. I've been waiting on you to get the full text of those chiropractic articles. Nancy Sculerati 17:09, 6 April 2007 (CDT) darn no clashes of swords, no musketeer in action :)yessir;) :( no more humor :)Iwasserious:(:)Iwasnot:)>:uscaredme:< noneedtohideshyone :)butiseedeadpeople! goodfridayisoverthereareeggstobefound:) isaidfindnotHIDE:):)))findwhat?:))[[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:black"> <font color="red"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font> </span>, which ۝ should look like the following: Robert Tito |  Talk 


many dont enable mail, thats a bummer Robert Tito |  Talk 

BTW see rights-management of users, Ruth is the sister of Darth Vader. And haloween is far off :)

Quick, my saber! --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:42, 7 April 2007 (CDT) Matt can you get on AIM ASAP, need ur assistance - got some disk here thats asking for dr. guillotine - so I cant do things I need be doing. Rob

Thank you for the warm welcome

I'm glad to be a part of this project, and want to give my thanks for dropping that helpful opening message on my talk page. Ha, I'm actually scared to finish my biography. I'm a "kid" so to speak, so I fear I shant get much respect, age and all. I understand why though. Personally, I look at signing on with an information database of this huge potential as an investment. Someday soon I'll have my degree, then we'll have an extra editor, ha. In any case, I look forward to working with you, and have read the documentation you recommended (read it before I even signed up, really). I shall look you up, as you mentioned, if I have any questions. Be well.

Michael MacNeil 00:42, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Beowulf Cluster

"All you have to do is call on me and I will be glad to do it for you"

OK yes I never got too involved with Wikipedia's "article moving" procedures, so I didn't know what the best way to do it was. Please go ahead and move the thing, and I'll fix the two articles that link to it (Computers and Computers/Draft) --Eric M Gearhart 11:44, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

"However, could you add the CZ:The Article Checklist to the talk page"

Hmm I must've missed that one. I've been adding the checklist like crazy, that one just slipped by. Fixing now :) --Eric M Gearhart 11:53, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Page move request

Hey Matt is it possible for me to change my User name to Chris Day instead of Chris day as well as moving my edit histories to that new name? It seems this might be confusing people since my signature is Chris Day. The only reason it is lower case is that I typed my name in lower case without realising that would be my actual user name. Chris Day (Talk) 12:17, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

I've transferred my watchlist so you can block the old user name. I'm assumimg you are planning to leave in redirects, or is the plan to delete the old pages and subpages? If you plan on deleting stuff I'll want to rescue some of the subpages too. If your plan is to block i'll just leave it there for now and migrate it over as needed. Thanks again. Chris Day (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
When it rains it pours :) Could you move my talk archive into the new user space. i.e. User_talk:Chris_day/Archive_1 to User_talk:Chris_Day/Archive_1. You can delete the old page when it is done. Thanks Chris Day (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
Everything seems fine this end. Of course it might be that this IP is fine but others are not. At least I can get in on one of them. Chris Day (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

lost application?

Did you see this matt?,760.0.html

Are we backlogged this much? Chris Day (Talk) 14:47, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. Upon Nancy Sculerati's suggestion, I moved Tux/Draft to User:Joshua David Williams/Tux/Draft. --Joshua David Williams 17:03, 10 April 2007 (CDT)


Ypu everything ok for ULL approval David Tribe 18:05, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

under control?

not yet not by far. Josh changed the date of the toapprove-tag - I answered him on his talk page, if this enthusiasm remains we have a lot of this kind of corrections ahead. I do not see anything wrong doing in it - just faat-fast-fast-faster. Rob

Understood. You are an editor on the page right, I'll catch up and continue with constable so we don't pile on. --Matt Innis (Talk) 18:16, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

approval process/editorial procedures

I am a new editor for the Computers group. Doing a bit looking around, I found CZ:Approval Process, but I am unsure whether or not this document accurately describes current practice. For example, in the case of Life, I see that editors have indicated their support for approval on the talk page, in contrast to the "silence implies consent" procedure described on the above page. Is there a more definitive account of editorial procedures? Greg Woodhouse 18:20, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Greg as I see it now the procedure is as follows: 2 or 3 editors together can tag an article {toapprove} with a due date. A fourth editor - not having contributed much - can then approve it. Because of lack of editors now the general consensus is to ask a constable not involved in the process to do the approval-procedure. Because it is hard to have two editors or three concurrent at the wiki one tags the article, the second third and for all I care :) the 4th add their name to the tag. If three editors have tagged the approve template by their name - the page in effect is approved. Provided no editor is a major contributor to the article. Is this clear enough? Matt is this how the article is used now? (according to me the procedure is as I described). Cheers Greg and welcome as editor on the bit and byte field :). Robert Tito |  Talk  18:47, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Rob and Greg, If we are talking about the Tux article, the way I see it, either of you can approve this article because neither of you have contributed to it. The authors called you in and you can approve it or not. Since neither of you made any edits, you just have to decide if it is something you want you name connected to. If you decide you want to make changes to it that are significant, then you will need the other one to actually approve it as long as he did not make changes. If he did, then you would need another editor to approve. At this point, however, it would not matter if they made changes as long as you all agreed. That is my understanding of where you are now. See Approval Process / Who may approve. At this point you are still able to do the Individual approval process;

Who may approve ==

For any given topic, only editors who may be considered experts on that topic may approve an article on that topic.

Expert editors may approve articles in either of two configurations: individually or as part of a group.

Individual approval. Editors working individually may approve articles if they have not contributed significantly to the article. In this way, there is a kind of peer review. No single editor may approve an article to which that editor has contributed significantly. In other words, no editor may approve her own work singlehandedly.

Group approval. If there are at least three editors, all of which are expert in the topic of an article, and all of which have been at work on an article, then any one of them may approve of an article with the concurrence of the other two (or more) expert editors.

An author may trigger the approval process simply by writing a note to several relevant editors, drawing attention to the page.

So it is in line with what I wrote :) much ado not much. I like the more organic approach: reach three that agree and BOOM ur approved LOL My earlier point however was about Josh. A bit over eager to get things done - so he helped luck a little :D Have you read the remarks made by Steve about all articles need being main articles - they should be stand alone articles. That would in my opinion bypass the need for supporting articles, as the description of a staple needs the same attention as the working of a car or the safety precautions in use for nuclear plants. Robert Tito |  Talk 

The approval process is precisely described by CZ:Approval Process. If we wish to say it is anything other than that, we need to change that page. In other words, the way to learn what the process is, is precisely to consult the page, not to ask people what they think it is. People can opine about how it should be changed, but that's another matter altogether. --Larry Sanger 20:40, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Ooops didnt check the url 1 David Tribe 08
59, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Image:Weightlifter.jpg source?

I was hoping you could provide sourcing information on the picture Image:Weightlifter.jpg which you uploaded. Where did you get this image from? Thank you, Benjamin Lowe 12:44, 12 April 2007 (CDT)


Hi Matt, in Dog, content is from WP. Versuri 17:05, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

User talk:D. Matt Innis/sandbox


I, personally, live on a little hill which is atop a big hill and so-no, but all around -yes, rivers overflowing; the whole deal. In my little world, though, the pond is happy and the woods are full of frog song. Thanks, for asking, Nancy Sculerati 14:15, 16 April 2007 (CDT)


Thanks Matt, I corrected the "made in WP" error. Yes, I have been away for a while, but I have been collecting goodies for Citizendium too. By the end of this week I should be free of talks and legal stuff that tend to take an inordinate amount of time. Then I will be able to do what I like doing again:-) Christo Muller (Talk) 15:14, 16 April 2007 (CDT)

I thought that was the case with the WP. I do hope they let you out of jail soon:) --Matt Innis (Talk) 14:44, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

Gilad Atzmon article

Hi there…I have been in touch with Gilad Atzmon¸ who has indicated he is willing to become a topic informant¸ which I think is important¸ owing to the controversial nature of the discussion as it is already unfolding here. I have also sent him the information on topic informants which includes info about his right to ask for this article to be deleted if it becomes vandalised by people following some sort of unbiased (Zionist) agenda. He has indicated that since he does not appear in the Israeli wiki or citizendium¸ and does not live in or visit Israel¸ and is in fact a citizen of the UK¸ he would prefer his name not to be translated into Hebrew¸ so I have removed that addition by Elizabeth.

Could one of the editors dealing with topic informants please indicate exactly how we go about getting Gilad listed as topic informant. From reading the info¸ the process does not seem to be clear. Will wait to hear back on this page. Edna Spennato 08:58, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

Do you have time for some feedback?

First, I made a change to the Experimental checklist template. Could you check my two sandboxes for overlap, thanks. User:Chris_day/sandbox2 User:Chris_day/sandbox3

A second favor is that I'd like some more feedback on the approval area idea. You can see the major issues that i posted to David Tribes talk page. User_talk:David_Tribe#Approval_page. Chris Day (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

template stuff

template parser functions



Are you there Matt. Steven E hasn't updated the Life?Draft V 1.1 approval yet. So there another chance for you there.David Tribe 05:36, 19 April 2007 (CDT)

Saw your note. I'm working through this, but the pointless energy wastage over no good reason and failure to fix major bugs is such a pity. The sooner we devise a copy editing process that works the better.

Meanwhile serious errors just sit there uncorrected on an approved page. Its absolutely not your fault tho. David Tribe 22:51, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

There is no serious dissagreemenT and no problem. Im just working my way thru. Im confident all issues are resolved but Im doing due diligence now, and ensuring the text is up to date with the talk . David Tribe 23:18, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

Note my sign-off at Life QUOTE

All issues of content are corrected by edits. The two substance issues raised, cell numbers and protein numbers, are both addressed. AS comments about approval process do not refer to the Life article text. There are no outstanding issue with the text. 23:54, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
I believe there is no disagreement among the editors at the moment about the article. Some issues came up and they were resolved in my judgment. They were points of accuracy about cells types and proteins that have been resolved by edits. The cell number issue is a semantic one, the protein one was a factual one. Thus the issues have passed. I checked they had been implemented: one of them I did myself by cut and paste from A Sebastians the talk page in the last edit of the Life/Draft.

Life Version 1.1 approval Legal

I believe I can resolve the Life problem with an argument about legality.

But note first I have put in place Anthony Sebastians suggestion of the 20 April which is uncontroversial concerning protein numbers. Chris Day already supports it. With one more editor signature at Life/Draft talk we will have legalised that latest edit as part of Version 1.1.

But we have a fall back. April 18th deadline passed with no editor dissent. Thus the Version standing at that time was a legal Version 1.1.

We can fall back to that if we fail to get another supporter for the current latest edit. It is however with waiting to a few hours to a day see if we accumulate the triumvirate for the latest version :

before actioning the earlier legal Version 1.1

Subsequent discussion to the passed deadline is not relevant to a legally valid approved revision. So I have placed a maker in the Life/Draft talk at that deadline.

David Tribe 03:46, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

Preferably wait for triumvirate since the difference between the two versions above includes many copy edits from Gareth. It would be good to get those in the approved version. Chris Day (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
We have the triumvirate.

Just do it. Youll feel good afterwards too.;o) David Tribe 12:37, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

typo edit approvals

sheesh can we stop this rather obnoxious type-setting approvals where only minor edits are concerned???? Someone typed an s in stead of a d, new version???? get real. These dumb-*** typoes should be - on request changed by any sysop without having a new version or approval process. The way it seems now is like we take a long process to change letter A to D. wow. amazing. Robert Tito |  Talk  23:31, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

I don't think it is our job as constables to make those decisions. All we need is all the editors to agree that the version is ready to approve. I shouldn't even have to know why. Show me that the editors agree and it is done... period. If an editor does not agree, who am I to make that decision? --Matt Innis (Talk) 23:42, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

Infant Colic

Thanks, Matt!!!Nancy Sculerati 22:48, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

Computers no longer shows from Wikipedia

I made the edits as you asked on my user page; it was successful, and the Computer article is no longer marked as from Wikipedia. Thanks!Pat Palmer 21:13, 23 April 2007 (CDT)

History of Pittsburgh

Matt- I copied the following ftom Richard Jensen's talk page: we can nominate Part 1 and 2 of Pittsburgh history. They will both be expanded but are good now. Richard Jensen 09:16, 24 April 2007 (CDT) Could you kindly put up approval nomination templates on both those articles- He is nominating editor- you could give it a week 'till approval. [1] [2] Thank you, Nancy Sculerati 09:22, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

Matt, the template is not on the articles. On Project pages- on the side bar, click approvals. (It's new). You'll see what I mean - I hope. Nancy Sculerati 19:24, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

Matt, it appears that[] and [3] should be approved now. It is May 1. It also appears that the talk pages from [4] should be copied at the BEGINNING of the current talk page for EACH article, and then all duplicate articles should be deleted. Thanks, once this is done I will e-mail Tom Cool who should be pleased. Nancy Sculerati 09:55, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Another approval

Matt, if you take a look at my talk page, you will see that Russell Potter (who is a Media Editor) would like to nominate Telephone_Newspaper for approval. Will you do the honors, please? Nancy Sculerati 09:53, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

New article needs approval templates

Chance for redemption (over telephone newspaper)! I asked Sarah to do the approval template honors for Literature, and I expect that she didn't see my message. Look at (or towards) the bottom of Literature's talk page. You will see that Margaret Maddox has nominated. That was her first edit on the wiki (I talked her through it on the phone) and she did not use the 4 tildes (I forgot to tell her) but you can check the history of the page and see that it was her. Thanks, Nancy Sculerati 06:51, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

THANK you, Matt. Nancy Sculerati 07:20, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

Individual Editor rule

Hi Matt, just looking in on Literature, which you say will be approved under the "individual editor rule." Sounds fine, but I can't find this rule anywhere on the Citizendium's pages -- or, really, any central page which explains the approval process in detail. Can you refer me to the right place? Many thanks, Russell Potter 21:04, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

The Bab

Dear Matt, thank you for placing the article checklist on the edit page for the Bab. I have filled it out as best I can. I wonder whether the article's URL should be "Bab" or "Bab_The" rather than "The_Bab"? What do you think? I don't know how to fix that. Robert Stockman 15:53, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Regarding the Bab, his name should be alphabetized under B, not under T, so I guess it is now correct. Robert Stockman 10:55, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

Good news! --Matt Innis (Talk) 11:04, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the welcome!


I wanted to let you know that I tried to reply to your last email and got this message:

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

I thought you might want to know.

Also, I had a question regarding Wikipedia. I was planning to continue to contribute to Wikipedia while I contribute to Citizendium. So, if I write a new article, and create it on both sites, is there a conflict of interest?


George Krieger 09:51, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks George! My return address says .com rather than .org It is fixed now! --Matt Innis (Talk) 10:12, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

Great! :) George Krieger 14:47, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
I had the same problem, but I failed to notice the .com vs. .org thing. I guess I'm getting old. ;-) --Ed Poor 16:09, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

Don't beat yourself up, I was wondering why my wife was not answering my emails, guess I can call off the private investigator! ;-) --Matt Innis (Talk) 16:12, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

Time Warner

What was the thought process for not deleting Time Warner stub? Robert Winmill 13:12, 9 May 2007 (CDT)

Thank you for the information. Robert Winmill 14:39, 9 May 2007 (CDT)


The Islam article still needs a lot of work; Wikipedia's is better in some ways. I need to add a lot more footnotes, and I am very bad at adding pictures, so that will require effort. I may lift some bits from the Wiki article, since it addresses some areas in which I am weak. After that, I may approach some of the religion editors. There are also several authors who are Muslim and may have some ideas. Robert Stockman 09:51, 10 May 2007 (CDT)


Please see my talk page, Matt./ You can always e-mail me directly or call me if there is a problem. Nancy Sculerati 09:56, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Matt, I think you can go ahed with the Prime number approval, if you would. Thank you, Nancy Sculerati 17:31, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

The last revision by Greg Martin incorporates both changes, please approve (21:07, 10 May 2007) (edit)- the most recent one of the ones you showed me. Thank you, Nancy Sculerati 19:06, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

For Literature, after checking- I can tell you that the last revision by Russell Potter is fine-14:27, 8 May 2007 Russell Potter (Talk | contribs | block) (→Literary media - tweaking as per comments on Talk page). Thanks again, Nancy Sculerati 19:10, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Matt, you misspelt my name when you added the approved template to Prime number (diff). It's Niesen, not Nieson. I don't really care (so no apologies are necessary), but it does break the link. -- Jitse Niesen 21:40, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

I realize now that I brought you in a difficult situation with the mess on complex number. Sorry. -- Jitse Niesen 10:38, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

Many thanks on Literature approval process

Hi Mark,

Just wanted to thank you for your role in seeing Literature through the approvals process, and for helping make sure that the approved version included all the most recent edits. It looks great! Now, on to work on version 1.1! Cheers, Russell Potter 22:56, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

Looking at Islam...

As you suggested, I'm looking at this piece and making some revisions. But am I supposed to not add any materials form wikipedia? Hmmm. Let me know asap. Thanks David Hoffman 23:27, 10 May 2007 (CDT)

List of approving editors?

I would like to see, for each approved article, an easy-to-find list of approving editors -- mainly because I think that lends credibility to the page. For the Prime Number page, for example, it is only possible to find the name (and bio) of one approving editor, unless one searches through the edit history and even then it isn't clear, but I'm pretty sure there were at least two approving editors. Shouldn't the approving editors be listed in the Approval area of the talk page? --Catherine Woodgold 07:11, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

I agree 100%. It would be nice if it were embedded in the template. --Matt Innis (Talk) 07:25, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

Version 1.1 or 1.0?

Is the first approved version of Complex Number version 1 or version 1.1? The note just before the yellow bar on the talk page seems to indicate 1.1. But on Prime Number, the first version is called 1.0. --Catherine Woodgold 07:20, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, looks like a cut and paste error. I'll fix it. --Matt Innis (Talk) 07:26, 11 May 2007 (CDT)

Big Bill Tilden

Hi, and thanks for the welcome! In the future, I will be very careful about noting *exactly* which version of a Wiki article I import for inclusion here. In the meantime, I'm pretty sure that I went back to my own last edit of February 13th and then copied it into CZ, then made some modest edits. Hopefully the link below will take you to the exact Wiki version:

If not, let me know. Also, you can look at the history of the Wiki Tilden article and go back to my own edit on Feb. 13th. I've started working on the massive Wiki "tennis" article, which I am going to heavily edit in Wordperfect, then insert here. It suffers from tremendous bloating and weird editing. I'll try to get it up to snuff before importing it -- and I'll try to do a little more editing on the Tilden article, as various Wiki editors somewhat arbitrarily (in my opinion) divided it into Wiki-type sections that broke up the natural flow of the article. In any case, I'm glad to be here! Hayford Peirce 21:19, 11 May 2007 (CDT)


Matt. it was so good to see your note on my talk page- I miss working with you! But...I also realized I need a favor and so thought I would ask. Tux/Gallery [5] has been overlooked for approval. Stephen Ewen would have done it- but he's an author. One thing is I figure he has checked out all those images thoroughly, so that's good. Could you do the honors? Nancy Sculerati 11:20, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Not sure what the procedure is here. I had a discussion with David Tribe a while back and he felt that the gallery approval was tied to the article approval. This is certainly true for the biology gallery (Biology/Gallery). The constables should probably discuss whether the article approval envelopes all the sub pages too or whether they all need independant approval. Clearly Nancy and David have differing views here. For simplicity I think I would side with David in this debate. If David's view is the route we decide to take here, then we should probably consider redirecting the gallery talk pages to the draft talk page too, so discussion is centralised on the page that transcludes the approval area. Chris Day (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

There is no debate. The article has been nominated for approval and unless an editor in its workgroup removes the template it will be approved.Nancy Sculerati 11:47, 14 May 2007 (CDT) Wait Matt! Oh, I see. All of the content of that gallery is already in the aproved article TUX. This is a mistake to consider it separately for approval. Can you append it to the approved article? Nancy

Just to clarify, I misremembered my conversation about this issue. It was Robert Tito, not David Tribe, that thought associated galleries should be included as part of the article approval. [6] This was discussed briefly on the tux gallery talk page but never really came to a satisfactory conclusion. Chris Day (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

All systems are on hold :-) --Matt Innis (Talk) 12:43, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

If I'm reading this right, Nancy also agrees with Robert here? If so, I suggest that the contents of the tux/gallery talk page is merged and redirected into Talk:Tux/Draft. Then protect that talk page so it cannot be edited further. In this way any user who wishes to leave comments about the gallery will automatically be redirected to the related talk page. Does this make sense? Chris Day (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
It does make sense, Chris. I assume also that the gallery page should also be protected, but my question is whether an Approved template should go on top of the page? Would like to hear Nancy's response to this as well. --Matt Innis (Talk) 12:50, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
Yes, it makes sense to protect the gallery page too. I don't think it is necessary to add the approval template since that will clog up the categories with sub-pages of approved articles. Do we want to go down that route? It seems that such pages would only be of interest to someone who is already on the main articles page so they should always be treated as a part of that article. Consider this analogy, you wouldn't put an approval template on every figure in an approved article, yet they do exist on their own pages. Personally, I see the galleries in a similar light, although I can see the sense in redirecting the talk page since there may well be a need for editorial comments in the galleries to be discussed on the draft talk pages. Chris Day (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
Why don't we protect the page and put a note on it that says:
This gallery is part of the approved Tux article.
--Matt Innis (Talk) 13:23, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

EDIT CONFLICT (great minds think alike) So, here's what I's say (which is I think what we are all saying):

  • It makes sense to protect this page. It has been approved by 4 computer editors and Stephen Ewen worked on it, so we know that the images have passed muster in terms of copyright, and that the computer people are happy with the page.Putting it into some kind of approved frozen version is absolutely reasonable and not breaking any kind of protocol.
  • On the other hand, it is silly to approve this as a separate article. For one thing, counting it as another approved article is not really appropriate, for another, it is associated with the already approved Tux article
  • This is not a unique case, really. The same factors that stimulated the creation of this page did so (as Chris has pointed out) the Biology/Gallery. In fact, it might be reasonable to have galleries as a convention. Not required, mind you- but as an elective.
  • Correct me if I'm wrong - but this wasn't ready when Tux was approved, which was why it was not approved with it's designated article.This scenario could easily happen again, with other articles and galleries.
  • So- can we approve this as a Correlated Gallery? Make up a new template, and that's how it's approved. Not as an article, but as a Gallery. Is that OK? The template should indicate the article that it is associated with. If you are agreeable, we should do the same thing with the Biology gallery. It will have to be nominated for approval, as a gallery, and then frozen in his way.
  • Better suggestion from anyone? I'm open to one.Nancy Sculerati 13:25, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

edit-when I say a new template, I mean a template that will link it to its article and identify it as a gallery. We could just put a note-like Matt suggests-for now, and open it up for discussion on how to do it long-term.Nancy Sculerati 13:28, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

(Edit Conflict) Great minds think at the same time. Sounds good. I put the note on the top of the page already (actually only changed the text that was in the {{dablink}} template, but if you want another template, I'll let you and Chris work that out. You don't even need me to place it, that would be a copyedit I think ;-) --Matt Innis (Talk) 13:32, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Making a gallery template is not a bad idea. Are you thinking of having it point to a gallery category? I can make a simple template to includes the gallery in a category as well linking it to the related article. And what to do with the talk page; still redirect it to the draft talk page? Chris Day (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

I like both those ideas. I think the talk pages should go to the approved article and it would be neat to have a category with all the picture galleries. It should be a small template. --Matt Innis (Talk) 13:41, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

I'll write a template for you to play with that includes all the features you mention. Chris Day (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2007 (CDT)


Hi matt, try the following template {{ApprovedGallery}} on the two approved galleries. It will establish the galleries in a general approved galleries category as well as one specific for the work group. As with the approved template make sure there is at least one workgroup added. See the usage explained on the template. Chris Day (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

While we experiment with this, bear in mind that the information in this template could be included in the approval template too. Thus the approval template from the article could be copy and pasted to the gallery subpage and give the same output as this {{ApprovedGallery}} template. The approval template code would become more complex but have the advantage of making the appoval process more simple.
Trying to help the approving constables even more. The approval template code could become even more unwieldly to include all the information required for the draft talk page and the draft page too. In that way only one template needs to be repeated on all the related approved pages. Is that a desirable option? Chris Day (talk) 16:09, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Chris, it might be desirable, but what if the gallery gets updated and the article does not, or vice versa? Can these be filled in at different times? Nancy Sculerati 16:43, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Good question Nancy. Okay, I put them on the article pages. Looks like they are linking to their own pages instead of the original articles. I like anything that can make a constables job easier... but we need to test everything reeeeally well before implementing, if you know what I mean. --Matt Innis (Talk) 16:45, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Now you have the template in the gallery i can play around a bit to fix the minor probelms. Clearly any unification of the of these templates needs to go through a trouble shooting period.
With regard to Nancy's question I am assuming that the article and gallery are under one approval. Isn't that why we agreed to redirect the gallery talk page to the articles draft talk page? Thus, if the gallery gets updated then the article needs to be reapproved. Of course a flaw here is that there is no draft page for the gallery. I would favour having the two pages (article and gallery) under one approval and changes to the gallery would be discussed on the draft talk page. I would favour not having draft page for the gallery but rather editors working in a 'sandbox section' on the articles draft talk page. This could then be cut and pasted to the gallery if the changes are approved.
If we do wish to have the gallery as a separate approval then we should not redirect the gallery talk page to the articles draft talk page. Chris Day (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Matt, after playing around a bit i can't get this fixed. Check the template on Talk:Life/Gallery and you'll see it works fine. However, in article space, (see Life/Gallery) it does not function correctly. Obviously this is a coding error on my behalf, but I'm not sure what I need to fix? It might be a good idea to ask Zack or Jason how to trouble shoot this. i think it is beyond my limited knowledge. Chris Day (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Isn't that the way it always goes! That one last thing you want to do is always just out of reach:-) I will switch back to the text version until we can get this fixed.
I did have another question - under abc, do you put eg. Tux or Tux/gallery?
--Matt Innis (Talk) 17:37, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
I'd go with Tux since all will be appended by Gallery. Ideally the gallery part would be omitted from the gallery category name but I can't figure out how to do that either!! Possibley neither of these are possible. Where are the cavalry? Chris Day (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
Tux it is. I have never emailed Jason or Zack, but will give it a try. --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:41, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
I've identified the problem: BASEPAGENAME prints the name of the page, minus the namespace and subpages. The problem is that while Talk:Life/Gallery is a subpage of Talk:Life, we've disabled subpages in the main article space (out of concerns for articles like "Face/Off" or "1/4"). This makes Life/Gallery not a subpage of Life The main solution would be to make the article space use subpages. A workaround would be to install string functions and create a hacked up template that removes all "/Gallery", "/Approved", "/Draft" and so forth from article names and returns that. Either way, it involves work that only Jason or Greg have the necessary acccess privileges to do (although I could easily outline how to do it).
In other news, I apologize for my distance over the last few weeks. I just finished finals, which was rather consuming of my time, and now that I'm at my parents' house, I don't have high-speed internet, which obviously complicates the whole "contributing to an online project" thing. -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me)
Wow that was fast, and congrats on finishng your exams. Your absense was anticipated and we'd probably have kicked you out if you had appeared too often. At least now I know why i couldn't figure it out. I'll e-mail Jason and see if he or Greg can filter out the gallery approved and draft pages as you outlined above. Thanks. Chris Day (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
It would probably be an order of magnitude easier to just set it so that the article space uses subpages. We can work around article names with slashes in them in some sort of editorial policy.
If they install string functions, we can create the necessary filter as a template using string and parser functions ourselves. Specifically, we'd use nested #replace statements to remove any instance of the desired phrases ("/draft", "/gallery", etc.) from the string. There are other ways to do it too, but they're probably harder.
A third alternative is to create our own "magic word" like BASEPAGENAME (call it BASEARTICLENAME or something) that does what we want, but that would be written in PHP (I assume they can't use Python or Perl as easily) and would have to be maintained by Jason or Greg. -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 22:25, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
Matt, in reply to your question about the current message on the Tux Gallery, its ok- but ideally we should have a template or a category (you know I am pretty ignorant here about wikis) something that allows all galleries to come up. Do we have that?Nancy Sculerati 21:09, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
There is currently a category that lists all galleries for approved articles. It would be trivial to add a category to cover all galleries (add one line to a few templates). -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 23:03, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
Nancy, did you look at the template we are discussing here? See the test page at Talk:Life/Gallery. The text there is generated by a template ({{ApprovedGallery}}) and look at the categories at the bottom. The reason it is not currently being used on the Tux or Biology Gallery pages is that is does not work with the current mediawiki settings, however, this can be changed by Jason or Greg. Chris Day (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Sportsgroup and a general question about links

Hi, Matt, thanks for the tips! Sooner or later I'll get up to speed on all of this -- hope that I don't make too many mistakes in the meantime! I've been wondering, however, since joining CZ how many red links you'll tolerate. Wikipedia drove me crazy with all the obsessive linking some people would put in -- and that other people would then take out. It seems obvious to me that a link to Don Budge is going to be activated fairly soon (by me, if no one else), but in the tennis article, for instance, before I edited it there were *hundreds* and hundreds of links to relatively obscure players and things that will take *years* to show up here in CZ. Should a CZ article like Tennis still have all these red links? Or should they be deleted, as I did, and then be gradually added later? Is a puzzlement! Hayford Peirce 13:14, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
That sounds like a perfect question for the forums. At first glance i would be inclined to keep links so we know what we need, but I agree a sea of red is not good. Possibly the colour of red links can be made more obscure to improve readability. Chris Day (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
Good point. My first thought is that once an article is approved, it takes a lot to get it re-approved, so even though you might be able to get an article about one of those tennis players up and wikilink the Draft page, it won't get updated for awhile. In that case you would want them linked now. We lean to having them linked as well (mostly to motivate us to write more;) Maybe if the color were not so obtrusive. By the way, Hayford, with questions like these it means you are catching up to us - no more new guy! ;-) --Matt Innis (Talk) 13:36, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
Thanks for the kind words! I'll remember about the red links and start putting them in again, but in a *reasonable* way. At least in the articles where that's feasible. If someone else wants to go to tennis and turn it into a sea of red, please be my guest! Hayford Peirce 14:16, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

WPauthor template

I can't remember -- I hunted around for it, because I couldn't figure out what some of the instructions were about putting the template in. I really gotta say that I think a lot of the Help pages are *very* unhelpful! If it's important for you to know about the template, I'll try and track it down for you.... Hayford Peirce 14:13, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

That's okay - that one needs to stay hidden! As you get better at this stuff, remember and come back and rewrite some of those help pages to help the newcomers. --Matt Innis (Talk) 14:17, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
Okay, I'll do that! I think that on one help page I have already changed "Search Button" to "Browse...." -- that one was on the page for how to upload an image. Weird that such a strange mistake would be made!Hayford Peirce 14:53, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Matt, chances are it came from this help page: Should you check the Content_is_from_Wikipedia box? Chris Day (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Well shiver me timbers, would you look at that. It magically appeared there! --Matt Innis (Talk) 16:01, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

LS is magical? [7] Chris Day (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
More like omnipotent :) --Matt Innis (Talk) 16:15, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
Naw, you found it yourself before I started looking for it -- thank goodness! I doubt if I would have ever found it again! As for nuts and crazies, you're like a couple of great guys I knew at Wikipedia -- one of them, 23Skidoo, an Admin, has just quit, the other, Mike Christie, is an expert editor and S.F. expert -- I'm trying like crazy to get both of them to sign up over here.... Hayford Peirce 19:40, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
Sounds like they need to be here! But I'm not sure we can handle too many more like me ;-) Otherwise you'll be the one driven crazy! --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:00, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Another weird question

In the David M. Alexander article, you may note that it says that he wrote some stories in conjunction with Hayford Peirce. In the original Wiki article there is a link to Hayford Peirce. And there is a full Wiki article about me. I blush to say that I wrote it myself, before I knew that Wikipedians weren't supposed to do that, but after being criticised by various people, the consensus was that it should be allowed to stand, ditto for the various books of mine that were linked. I have better things to do with my time here at CZ, but I *am* wondering about that link (or possible link) in the Dave Alexander article. And what about the Waldo Peirce article in Wikipedia? He was a noted painter and famous character for many years, more or less unknown since dying 37 years ago. Thanks for any tips on this. Hayford Peirce 14:53, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Wow, you are having to learn a lot really really fast aren't you;-) Citizendiums equivolent to Biography of living persons is Topic Informant, read this on policy for such. We have not had too many of these, yet, but would love to have more - in fact we are looking for someone to head it up. You just might be that person, too! First, though, check out the page and familiarize yourself with the concept and then see if you feel comfortable with becoming a topic informant on your article. It shouldn't be a problem. In fact, it could be fun. I know you'll have questions, but then we can work through them together. --Matt Innis (Talk) 15:22, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
Okay, I've read this twice now and *think* I am beginning to understand it. But I want to read it again and muse some more about it. Several years ago, when I was new to Wikipedia, I put a brief comment in, I think, either the Robert A. Heinlein article, or the "Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" article, that Heinlein himself had once told me that he thought this was his best book. This was kicked around for several months, dealing with the Original Research question, with some people fairly adamant for keeping it, and others for deleting it. And whether it was permissible as a footnote but not in the main text. Eventually it was deleted AND I finally understood what the Wiki Original Research policy meant. In the meantime, however, I wrote a couple of long, impassionated screeds in which I said, basically: Look, let's say that a 91-y/o guy like Arthur C. Clarke suddenly decides that as part of his heritage he wants to put a lot of info about himself and his works into the ACC Wikipedia article -- are you telling me that this *couldn't* be accepted because it was Original Research?! Even from ACC? Even if he was gonna die the next day and this info would then be forever lost to mankind? One of the answers to this was: How do we *know* it's ACC who's proposing this info? Okay, if I understand Topic Informants correctly, it's saying that ACC *would* be allowed to contribute, one way or another, info about himself for CZ. If you'd give me your thoughts on this, I'll reread the article again with them in mind. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 17:04, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
That is my understanding as well. I think my best advice would be to forget most of what you learned at wikipedia. Read the instructions as if this whole thing was brand new to you. As long as you follow what is written, you should be okay. If an issue develops, we'll deal with it then. Right now, I think your problem is that the Topic Informant process is still in its infancy, so take it slow and you will get to help write the rules! --Matt Innis (Talk) 18:30, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

The Catcher in the Rye

What do we do with something like The Catcher in the Rye? To call it sub-literate is to flatter it. It looks as if it were taken whole cloth from a Website, where it exists in its pristine illiteracy. In my experience, something like this is not worth even trying to edit, it is better to just scrap it and start all over again (like someone who is French or Chinese, say, and who speaks fluent English, but then writes a book in semi-literate English and asks you to "correct" it for him/her -- it can't be done without re-writing the whole thing). Should I put this comment on the Discussion page of Catcher? I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.... Hayford Peirce 21:31, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Righto. 10,000 more dumb questions from now I'll be more or less up to speed, hehe.... Hayford Peirce 22:17, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
Are you kidding? It won't be long till you'll be asking me what is taking me so long! --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:20, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
Wow, *that* was fast! I'll take a look tomorrow at the author who brought in this article in the first place. A cursory look at his page shows that he has brought in (or intends to bring in) a lot of similar articles from the same source. Some may be better than this; or, who knows?, maybe all of them should be deleted. I'll do it tomorrow.... Hayford Peirce 22:27, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
Yup, I will be vigilant for this kind of stuff, it was one of my pet peeves at Wikipedia. Where I would be screamed at, and cursed, for bringing it to anyone's attention.... Hayford Peirce 22:28, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
I bet! Keep in mind that we do have some different rules, especially about notability that I know was big at wikipedia, but not so important here. Just look to see if they fit any of the Article Deletion Policy guidelines. Also, if you are looking for things to do, stop in here and see if there are any articles that you might be able to give some feedback on. I would especially suggest the Northwest Passage article. It was really interesting. --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:35, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Contraception and 4 editors

No, Matt-hold off. I did not realize that this 4 editor thing was news to Larry. Let him decide. I was thinking about it, too, actually. It should be that an editor as a chance to stop approval if he or she feels strongly, and -on the one hand if 4 editors (there was another, so I removed myself and put Walter in) agree, then even if someone disagrees it does seem that approval should probably proceed- On the other hand, it could be that a 5th or 6th or...nth editor might bring up a point that the others did not think of, on the foot (having run out of hands), this is the sort of thing that could also be handled with a version 1.1 though, and so I think I personally am in favor of the current template. But I do think that it is Larry's ultimate decision. Let's wait to hear.Nancy Sculerati 13:32, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

HAH #2

I thought you might enjoy this. Please, don't do it the first time, lest twice!  :-D ---Stephen Ewen 00:42, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

LOL! Now that is the true meaning of Freudian slip :-D --Matt Innis (Talk) 06:51, 18 May 2007 (CDT)


Tempers getting a bit frayed on very minor points so I've advanced the approval timing. There are 4 editors now who've supported me in Approval; I made a last consensus copy edit, can you fix the approval as soon as you think proper? I think you can do it any time now, we're only talking about minor copy edits. May not be on line much today and tomorrowGareth Leng 05:22, 20 May 2007 (CDT)


Matt, could you do the honors for Bacteriophage? I have e-mailed David and asked that he be sure he's happy with the version, though I have not yet heard back. thanks, Nancy Sculerati 09:34, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks very much. When it's morning there he'll be welcome to make any required changes, and again I thank you. Nancy Sculerati 14:14, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Northwest Passage

Yes, Matt- whenever you are ready for approval. Thanks for your message to Richard. n Nancy Sculerati 19:35, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Crystal Palace

Matt, Richard Jensen has indicated on his talk page that he would like to nominate Crystal Palace for approval. I tried to put the template up, and I don't know where to find it. I did put up a try. Can you jelp out with your superior skills? Thanks, Nancy Sculerati 18:32, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

Billiard Balls

Do you understand this, Matt? --Robert W King 11:16, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

New Articles

Hi Matt, Sorry I didn't notice your posts in my discussion page. Yes, initially the articles were form Wikipedia (I will start working on them) but then I decided not to copy/paste the info from other sources, instead I will start making translations and/or making new articles from my researches. Do you have any other suggestions?

I've noticed that Yi Zhe Wu requested a speedy deletion of the article José Joly Palomino, why? I don´t consider this spam, posting info about worldwide important businesspeople can't be considered spam or vanity (I don't even know these guys!). Matt, if you also consider this article to be spam, please tell me the reasons, if not, please remove that box from the article, thanks!--Alfredo Castro 12:02, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Hi Alfredo, thanks for the response. At this early point, they look like they could be spam type articles promoting specific politics or people, but I prefer to give you a little time to expound on them and bring them around to neutral articles. Do me a favor and work on one to get it into tip top shape and then we can decide whether it is something that is maintainable. I'm thinking that if you can present them right, these can be good articles, but it is not up to me to decide about content issues, that would be an editor issue in the workgroup that they fit or Editor in Chief (Larry's) call. So get to work and clean them up! :-) Matt Innis (Talk) 13:14, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Ok, I've finished editing Amancio Ortega, added new info and edited de WP article, hope it fits CZ standards. About José Joly Palomino's article, I see it like a stub, in this small article I don't see any promotion or anything similar, just the facts. But as you say about content, it's an Editors call. I just don't like seeing that box in my article. Well, thanks again Matt. --Alfredo Castro 16:08, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Hey, that looks better! Now all you need is to add the checklist - and fill it out according to the instructions I put on your talkpage. Do the same thing on José Joly Palomino that you did on this one and lets see what you end up with. Matt Innis (Talk) 16:37, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Hi, Matt. Though I do use Wikipedia as a source for information, I make it a point not to use information that is specific to Wikipedia articles; I mostly just use it for easy access to other sources, like IMDb and official websites. Also, I have contributed extensively to both Wikipedia and IMDb, so some of the info from those sites was already researched by me at an earlier date.
I'm going to fill out some of my earlier articles so they're up to Citizendium standards, which are a bit higher than Wikipedia's.Greg Lawrence 00:53, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
Good news. You seem to have the right idea. If you do import, make sure to give proper credit. If you wrote something at WP, sometimes you can link to the history of that article on wikipedia and place it on the top of the article talk page with the WPauthor template. Keep going! Matt Innis (Talk) 08:06, 8 June 2007 (CDT)


Matt, I'd like to nominate the article DNA for approval with a maximim date, whatever you think best- 2 or 3 weeks. It's an ok article that needs work- it's such an important subject that I feel we need motivation to get it the attention that it deserves. I promise I will do that if no one else does. Once you put up the template, I'll do today's approval announcements. Thanks.Nancy Sculerati 14:56, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Sounds like a plan! Matt Innis (Talk) 15:02, 7 June 2007 (CDT)


Hey, thank you so much for the tips and heads up. I just had one question, should I place the article Child sexual abuse" in no category, this way it's listed on the "Category:Needs Workgroup" page? I couldn't really find any, with the exception of maybe psychology that would suite the article best. Get back to me when you can, thx! Oh btw, I only copied two sections from Wikipedia: "Effects", which I pretty much rewrote in my own words, and "Child grooming", which I was the author of so it doesn't really count. Thanks again for being so helpful. Mike Mayors 10:27, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Naming conventions

Sorry to bother you again, but is there an article on naming conventions? I never know when to capitalize a letter for sections and subsections ...are there any rules or guidelines for it? Mike Mayors (Talk) 21:58, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

You are not bothering me, it is nice to have someone to work with... I was just getting ready to check in on your article. Yes, there is an article of Naming Conventions] and yes it is lower case unless it is normally capitalized in a sentence. But if you really want the good link, it is Project Home. It is on the left in the "project pages" box. If you can't find what you are looking for there, then.. well.. keep looking somewhere else then ;-) --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:10, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Citing sources

I don't know if your policy is the same as wikipedia's, but if I'm reading an article that cites a source for a specific fact, and I want to use that fact in an article, do I cite the source I'm currently reading, or do I cite the source that they gave?

For example, do I cite "" , or do I cite whatever research study "" cited on their abuse page? Mike Mayors (Talk) 00:23, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Mike, this is a very good question and, while I am no expert on citations, here are my thoughts: The most important feature is to credit the author for the "thought". If the "thought" is a synthesis of the author at (from say and and scientificstudy1), then cite (of course, preferably the author of the paper at But, if quotes "" verbatum, then it is's "thought". Here is the tricky part... it is best to verify that really got it right so that we don't perpetuate a "lie". So, to be truly thorough and acedemic, you should work to get the original pieces and verify the StopItNow got it right - IF you want YOUR reputation to remain intact. Make sense? In other words, your goal is to get it right and give credit where due. Hope that helps. --Matt Innis (Talk)

Thanks Matt, I'll definitely keep that in mind when adding content in the future. Mike Mayors (Talk)

Ancient Celtic music

Hi Matt,

Catching up with something I'd meant to do a week or so ago: I would like to nominate Ancient Celtic music for approval; I agree with Nancy and others that it's a very impressive from-scratch entry for CZ, and it will (I think) be a first for the Music Workgroup. Cheers, Russell Potter 16:38, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Thanks Matt, fo ryouyr message, and I'm just here to ask that you do the nomination, give it a 24 hours turn around. please. Nancy Sculerati 20:47, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
Sure, I can do that per the Approval Manager :-) I am planning to walk Russell through the placement of the tag, so he can do it next time! --Matt Innis (Talk) 20:56, 10 June 2007 (CDT)


  • Hi, Matt. I'm sure this is covered somewhere, but I'm taking a shortcut here and asking you: How do you include references within an article? I know about doing the following: arrow + ref + arrow close [LINK TO WEBSITE]Retrieved: TODAY'S DATE arrow + ref arrow close. This is for an online reference, of course. But how do you create the reference list at the bottom of the page? When I try to include references, the article is cut off at the point the first reference appears. I've done this before, correctly (at Wikipedia), but have forgotten how to do it.-- Greg Lawrence 01:42, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

thanks for fixing my talk page fiasco

Thanks Matt. I think the explanation you left me will enable me to archive in the future without a problem. Nathaniel Dektor 12:55, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

Great! I tried not to leave any dangling participles. :D --Matt Innis (Talk) 13:32, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

Actually, Matt, I am a dangling participle: I now realize that I do not actually know how I would create Archive #2. That need is a long way off, but can you give me or point me to the recipe? My talk page just has that template thingy, so I can't tell exactly where I'd make a wikilink to Archive 2. Nathaniel Dektor 18:20, 12 June 2007 (CDT)
I made you one. Can you see how to do it now? Basically, you should be able to just make the next number and it will automatically put it on the archive box. --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:13, 12 June 2007 (CDT)
I don't quite see the pattern yet. When you say "you should be able to just make the next number" how exactly does one do that? Do you mean just create a wikilink by writing Archive n between sets of square brackets, and then the template thingy will know how to update itself? I'm not ordinarily this dense and would trial and error my way through it, but I don't want to mess up my actual user space and this isn't a sandbox kind of operation. Nathaniel Dektor 19:19, 12 June 2007 (CDT)
OK, I get it. Can you delete my archives 2 and 3? I'll always have the instructions for how to do this on my talk page. Nathaniel Dektor 19:34, 12 June 2007 (CDT)