User talk:Hayford Peirce/Archive 10

From Citizendium
Jump to: navigation, search



I wrote this article quickly, probably could use an experienced writer such as yourself (if interested) to spruce it up. Big traffic driver.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 17:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would go *insane* if I had to work on a article like this! I take it there's both a movie, a cult, and what else, books, about this nonsense? If so, then you should mention all of them at least in passing. Good luck, and don't let your mind rot.... Hayford Peirce 17:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Too late. Mind already rotted. But wanted to ask: is there any truth to rumors that your book The Burr in the Garden of Eden was responsible for launching the 2012 hysteria? Please comment.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 17:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It was probably the group sex scenes in which they are channeling Reichian orgones that caused all the problems.... Hayford Peirce 18:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hayford I would like your permission to upload a picture of the cover of your book The Burr in the Garden of Eden for an article.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 18:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
File:Burr in the Garden of Eden.jpg
The German cover of The Burr in the Garden of Eden
I suspect that Hayford cannot give that permission. You almost certainly have to go to the publisher. Chris Day 19:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that Chris is right, unless we want to try using the "Fair Use" doctrine, applying small scans of book covers. WP first did it this way, then deleted them all, then restored some of them, along with *long* justifications. I dunno why we couldn't do it here, but, I think, people have argued about this for years. In any case, I know the publisher, so I'll email him and ask him to grant permission. Hayford Peirce 19:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanx.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 19:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
In the world of science, if i write a review and want to include my own photo, one published in another journal, then I have to get permission from the publisher of the primary journal. We never own the material that we publish. It may be different in literature, but I doubt it, unless the books are self published, which is becoming more common. Chris Day 19:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It's the same in lit. as in sci. It's just that the "fair use" doctrine has been batted back and forth ever since I joined CZ 3 years ago. If we can justify it under "fair use", then it doesn't matter who owns it In any case, I have just emailed the publisher. Hayford Peirce 19:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Certainly I'm not clear on fair use. To me, if we're not profiting from it and only using it to promote the book, its hard to imagine how anyone could challenge it as not being "fair use". But our worry is not a common sense interpretation but the legal definition. Of that I am ignorant. Possibly your publisher could clarify what they mean and accept as 'fair use'? Chris Day 19:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
A little qualifier to Chris' above comment on copyright in science: This never has long been true but a growing number of scientific journals practice Gold Open Access, i.e. their content is now CC-licensed. --Daniel Mietchen 19:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the publishers have a clear idea either. I know that Stephen Ewen and I used email Time magazine and such like and explain that we were a non-profit, etc. etc. They would reply, "Yes, we understand, so we'll only charge $1000 per use of our covers." So screw 'em -- I myself think that "fair use" would let us use these covers. Especially if we throw in enough boilerplate explanation, as WP people are now doing. See, for instance, this: with all the boilerplate. I dunno why we couldn't do exactly the same thing. What's the absolute *worst* that could happened if we did? Well, I suppose that Larry could be thrown into prison for 300 years. Well, maybe not.... So, I myself, would unleash the unrestricted "fair use" doctrine all over CZ.... Hayford Peirce 20:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Those orgones

The Burr in the Garden of Eden (book) -- is this a good title for the article. I knew those orgones were responsible.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 20:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to put book after it, since there's absolutely no confusion about it. Hayford Peirce 20:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Is the German cover "family friendly", or can I use it to illustrate Pornography (soft-core, of course)...giggling at said policy. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
It's *my* sort of family friendly, but I dunno what Charlie Manson would say about it.... As far as *I'm* concerned you can use it anywhere, including an article about Orgone.... Hayford Peirce 21:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Sibling revelry, perhaps. mother's library did have some of Reich's orgone books, but I don't know if I even still have them in storage.
I am, incidentally, a bit surprised there has been zero comment about pornography. Yes, I think it's objectively written, but what does it take to do a controversial article around here if you aren't a homeopath? My Israel-Palestine work hasn't gotten any outrage.
This is reminding me, all too much, of the comment that even the people who write viruses don't support the Macintosh. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
No pix, I suppose, so no one cares. Or they're all busy over at the WP article, vandalizing, rewriting, and arguing. Hayford Peirce 22:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
One of the reasons I wrote it was to test Daniel's theory that an approvable article had to be illustrated, and, further, as a first sensitive topic to test the "ff" policy. As you point out, does anyone care? Should I try a serious article about erotic pain and the different philosophies of "safe, sane and consensual" vs. "risk aware consensual kink"? Howard C. Berkowitz 22:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Only if you want to put me, and probably everyone else, *really* to sleep. Although I suppose that the next time I wake up at 3 in the morning, as today, and have trouble getting back to sleep, I could come out and look at it for an effective somnifère... Hayford Peirce 22:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
PS, you might add to the Victoriana section of the porn article that there is truly nothing in the world *duller* than Prince Albert's porn.... Hayford Peirce 22:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
You refer, I assume, to his writing, as opposed to the eponymous body modification?
The convergence of pornography and being "up" at night, I suspect, is best left to Eric Massa.
I could also write in the Alex Comfort style, or a harder but not necessarily inflammatory style, or go to the deliberately dense Masters & Johnson approach. Nevertheless, this will need to be examined by the new EC. 22:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair Use

Just received this from the publisher of Wildside Press:

Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:56:08 -0400

Message-ID: <>

Subject: Re: Attention: John Betancourt -- cover permission requested

From: John Betancourt <>


Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163646c9d848887a0481dd1c73

Of course -- you don't need permission, though. I view it as fair use.

Which reminds me -- I've been meaning to drop you a note. I have found a new printer that doesn't charge the $12/book/year fee. If you want me to reissue any of your old Wildside books in print form, let me know. Happy to do so. (And I'll replace Alan's covers with something nice.)

-- John

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:27 PM, <> wrote: Hi, John,

Do you know the Citizendium project started by Larry Sanger, one of the co-founders of Wikipedia (although Jimmie Wales doesn't like to be reminded of that)? It's supposed to be a *better* Wikipedia. I don't know if it is going to succeed, but I am one of the Main Men there. There's an article about me there (as well as at Wikipedia):

Someone wants to write an article about my novel "The Burr in the Garden of Eden" and would like to upload a scan of the Wildside cover to illustrate the article. I told him that I'd ask your permission. Full credit and copyright info, of course, will be given to Wildside.

If you simply email me about this, I will insert your email into the permissions page of the image at some point.

Many thanks, and I'm glad to see that Wildside is apparently doing well these days!


Hayford Peirce _________________________________________________________________________

So, as you can see, at least *one* publisher views it as "fair use". Hayford Peirce 21:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Blockquote vs Quotequote

Didn't know the preferred format was blockquote, will try to use from now on.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 16:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I really like the colored-quote formats like (I think I saw in Biology perhaps? You're right the Life article -- looks great. but won't use).--Thomas Wright Sulcer 16:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC) --Thomas Wright Sulcer 21:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that 99.9% of the quotes in CZ are Blockquotes -- you could ask Howard about it.... Hayford Peirce 17:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Tony Sebastian used a lot of colour for quotes in the Life article. I seem to remember that was controversial at the time and there was a long debate about it on the forum. The main reasoning for using blockquote was that all quotes will look the same and are controlled by the stylesheet rather than by various templates and/or personalised wikimarkup. The idea is that changes to the style in the future will be consistent and easily implemented across the board. Chris Day 17:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Yes, I've just taken a look at the Life article. What to do, what to do? I wish that there were more Constables, or more Editors, or even just ONE functioning Editor-in-Chief. Or just a plain old Decider. It's too early to go mix a martini, but I feel like it. Why do people have to *complicate* things!? Hayford Peirce 17:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC) we are not we are not pro.gram.ed to obey. Ve are not or Da.leks Ve are pe.op.le. Ve have fau.lts and flaws. Ve have a have a have no Chris Day 17:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the old forum discussion. Chris Day 17:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Good grief, I had completely forgotten all that! Well, the hell with it.... Hayford Peirce 18:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Without looking at the Forum thread, it's a general Web best practice to be careful with eye candy, lest one get into browser dependencies, color vision, and the like. With an international audience, one also cannot assume broadband connections. Howard C. Berkowitz
Yes, that's what I gathered was the gist of the Forum discussion. Anthony had put a *lot* of effort into making his stuff look pretty. But I think it all depends on which browser one uses, plus other settings, etc. etc. Remember the character who was sticking in all the Congressmen and using all the extra equal signs? This is just another example of that, actually. Hayford Peirce 20:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll use blockquotes; wouldn't want to be attacked by aliens or orgones or dareks or have weird sea creatures be attracted by eye candy. When I come across my old {{quote|}} I'll switch them around.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 21:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Meg, for one, use the quote template. I'd say not to worry too much at this point. Chris Day 22:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Check out Metaphor and Allostasis and allostatic load for the current method I use for blockquotes. Try different browsers and text sizes for viewing. I would redo the blockquotes I put in Life. Anthony.Sebastian 04:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Anthony, life is too short for all of that. I think that your efforts in Life look fine -- my only concern, here as in a couple of other issues that we Citizens argue about it, is simply establishing *consistency* throughout the spectrum of articles. For two reasons: aesthetics in general, and also, I gather from the tech people, that if we don't have *consistency*, a lot of the tech operations simply don't work. I myself am certainly not going to ask you to redo the Life quotes -- someday when we have a thousand WP retentive-types to do this, then we can address these individual cases.... Hayford Peirce 04:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hayford, you always make sense and force one to think further. I applaud operationally necessary consistency, though not consistency for the sake of consistency or at the expense communicative efficacy and creative innovation. I hear the little voice shouting from the back pew of my mind, something about about the hobgoblin of small minds. CZ, no place for small minds, you surely agree. Anthony.Sebastian 03:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I certainly hear you loud and clear about the hobgoblins, a phrase I've used many times in my lifetime. What I remember, however, is the case, what, six months ago, about the guy who was bringing in *hundreds* of articles he had created at WP about Maryland congressmen over the centuries (he'd been banned from WP). They were, more or less, *excellent* articles, and we *welcomed* here. But he then decided that for the section headings he wanted to use two, three, four, or more = (equal signs) SO THAT IT WOULD LOOK BETTER. Well, maybe it DID look better on HIS monitor, but not necessarily everyone else's. But the IMPORTANT part of this, which, I myself, as the dumb cop, had absolutely no knowledge of but had to trust the judgment of our more technically oriented people, was that by using these extra = signs, he was screwing up, in major ways, basic operations of our entire "search" system or whatnot. We tried for a *long* time to explain to him, and to reason with him, but it was useless. Finally he ended up being banned as a vandal -- I'm sure that you remember the case. The point here that I'm trying to make, is that *sometimes* consistency, beyond just being a question of aesthetics and personal taste, is an important matter of practicality. For the latter point, I just have to trust the judgment of people more knowledgeable than I.... Cheers! Hayford Peirce 04:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I take your point. Avoid explosives. I'm getting close, though, to a blockquote format I like. Will try it out on Life/Draft. Anthony.Sebastian 03:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing it, and, I'm sure, many others do also. I'm certainly not 100% satisfied with our present formatting, so if we could evolve a *better* one, that could then be *consistently* applied, that would be great! Hayford Peirce 04:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

To hyphen or not to hyphen

Hayford, what do you think is correct: "multiplayer" or "multi-player"? Both? Is it a question of AE or BE? --Peter Schmitt 14:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hyphen, as per Ro. Hayford Peirce 15:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
When in doubt, I hyphenate. A hyphen rarely hurts, except in the case of hyphenated line-endings. Anthony.Sebastian 03:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My forum account has been deleted?

Have you any idea why my forum account has been deleted? [1] I would ask on the forums, but don't want to re-register until I know. --Chris Key 23:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, looking on the forums I probably got caught up in the 525 bogus members you deleted in 5 minutes[2]. I have re-registered under the same name, just awaiting approval... --Chris Key 00:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought that you had been registered a long time ago.... I'll approve you immediately. Hayford Peirce 00:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thicket strategy

Hi Hayford just letting you know what I'm up to. My thinking at present is that a way to boost CZ's web presence is by creating what HB and others call a thicket of articles -- not just one long one here or there, or a hot topic article -- rather the idea is to create a few good long articles which are comprehensive and interesting and well-written, and then write lots of little articles on supporting terms. Sometimes these are so-called lemma articles but I prefer just a very short article explaining a term, but loaded with wikilinks to the bigger articles and others. For example, my article Aeneid is a main one relating to another biggie dactylic hexameter but surrounded by lots of little articles on related subjects. I'm asking please don't delete the little articles since they serve (hopefully) the function of driving traffic to the bigger ones.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 12:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand my function -- I only delete obvious vandalism and dead-end accounts that are *clearly, clearly, clearly* against CZ policy as explained in various guidelines. I certainly would never delete *short* articles just because they're short. Basically, Constables only delete what *other* people ask them to, and even then it's almost *always* because of mistakes in Titles, etc. If I just went around deleting articles because I felt like it, I would be removed as a Constable. Hayford Peirce 16:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand your function, but I wanted to explain to you what I was trying to do, so that in the event that requests came up to delete small articles, that you'd understand the purpose behind my creating lots of little articles. I came across other instances in which articles may have been deleted in the past, possibly because they were small or didn't look significant (I'm not sure why there were deleted) but I wanted to explain that the idea behind creating a slew of smaller articles was to possibly build interest in the bigger ones like Aeneid or dactylic hexameter and such. It's a niche strategy -- find specific areas where we can compete with WP, and do a better job, possibly attracting other contributors and editors here. Again, I don't know if this will succeed or not, but I"m trying.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 21:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
On a related subject -- I'm exploring whether to do some kind of experiment regarding subpages and PageRank. I left a message here at DM's talk page. Wondering whether some kind of permission is needed. It would involve creating two competing article thickets on nonsense topics, to see which one did better in PageRank terms.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 12:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a clue as to what you mean -- Daniel and the other are the people to address. If they think that it would gum up the works, then don't do it. Hayford Peirce 16:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I didn't explain it well. I'm working with Daniel about it. Basically the experiment is harder than I thought, and DM thinks it would require article titles which were real, not nonsense ones; I'm putting this on the back burner for the moment. The idea was to have two competing "article thickets" -- one with subpages; one without -- and see which were easier to find using Google searches after a month being on CZ. I have a hunch that the subpages confuse the crawlers, but am not sure (HB isn't sure). But I was looking for some way to possibly show this, and if so, it would then have to come up with the editorial committee in charge.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 20:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, as long as you're experimenting, and others (not me, because I don't understand it) are aware of what you're doing, and you're not creating articles that would being CZ into obvious disrepute, then go ahead. I think that many of us have created test articles, or test something or others over the years. Eventually they just get deleted -- and forgotten. In some cases, Matt and I have been leery about Daniel and others creating and running Bots until they knew *exactly* how they would work.... Hayford Peirce 20:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wiped out again an edit conflict. (& then I went & put this on your user page!) Perhaps that's an argument for not keeping conversations confined to one page. After all, these days it's easy to keep two windows open. Anyway, yes, I find it hard to imagine how anyone could convincingly argue against your K-Trio examples. Did some jolly impartialist come along and quote statistics, as just happened to me: '19-5 isn't exactly conclusive'? And that in response, I notice, to someone else's figure of 9-1. Still only 1000-0 will do, it seems. Any idiots out there, their views must be respected. Ro Thorpe 20:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, worse than I thought. Have you ever thought about devoting yer time to a place called Citizendium? It's quite different, I hear! Cheers! Hayford Peirce 20:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

But, you say, common sense prevailed chez K-Trio! And my ancient ticker is still only 59 - until tomorrow. Ro Thorpe 21:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, [3] is the place if you can bear to have a look. I still have hopes of getting the co-ordinator chappie on my side. Yours dreamily, Ro Thorpe 23:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Good flippin' Geezus! ZZZZZZZz, that noise you hear is me snoring after trying to wade my way through about a quarter of it! Catch up on your Z's, you're gonna need all yer strength to deal with that! Hayford Peirce 23:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Is it worth getting worked up about? Normally this article on Wikipedia gets only a sliver of attention -- 6 users per day perhaps. My suggestion is if you're going to joust on wikipedia, prepare to battle. That's what it's all about. If you want quality, spend more time here on CZ.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 23:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Just fired another sally. I have plenty of time and patience. I used to teach Arabs and Koreans English. (Granted, that was much easier...) Ro Thorpe 01:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Meg has supplied the quotation, so I was able to give CZ a plug. The WPjuns will need all their reserves of bloody-mindedness... Ro Thorpe 18:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have the NYT Manual of Style, but it's only 230 pages long and not absolutely complete. I've looked through it and it doesn't seem to address the question at hand but, pragmatically, we can find a thousand examples in the paper itself to back up our position. Fowler's Second Edition probably has something relevant, but trying to find anything in that book is a nightmare. Hayford Peirce 18:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars and Philosophy

Hayford, as science fiction writer and thoughtful person, you might find the essays in this multi-authored book interesting.

Book Title: Star Wars and Philosophy: More Powerful Than You Can Possibly Imagine. Contributors: Kevin S. Decker - editor, Jason T. Eberl - editor. Publisher: Open Court. Place of Publication: Chicago. Publication Year: 2005.

If you have a Questia account, you can read the full-text: Anthony.Sebastian 03:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check this out! Hayford Peirce 03:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Conventional coal-fired power plant is due for final Approval tomorrow

Hi, Hayford: Just want to alert you that the Conventional coal-fired power plant is due for Approval tomorrow. Regards, Milton Beychok 16:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the welcome message, Peirce. I'm trying to figure out how things work and made some small contributions. Of course it is very similar to working on Wikipedia, but I find Citizendium very appealing. Regards, (and watch out for these lobsters!) Jules Grandgagnage 15:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

deletion requests

Hayford, you should look at the remaining deletion requests, too. I have completed the templates. --Peter Schmitt 08:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I figured that if I left them long enough someone would get tried of them! Hayford Peirce 14:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Minor minor

So you decided for the "crazy" AE system of dates ;-)

As for the endash without spaces: I know that American typography uses emdashes without spaces—like this—though I regard this as ugly. But are you sure that "May 1, 2000–June 2, 2010" is correct typographical praxis? It looks very irritating! (Because it groups "2000–June" together.)

--Peter Schmitt 00:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Peter -- you're gonna hate my answer to all your questions: "Because that's the way Larry decided to do it about two years ago." There were discussions in various places about all these points, and at last he simply said, "Do it this way." (I do think that in the case of the dates, there was some indication that sorts and searches etc. worked better with his mode. Can't remember 100%.) As for emdashes, *some* 'Merkins do it that way, others don't. The New York Times, for example -- with them it is WordSPACEemdashSPACEword. But remarque, in the CZ date it is an endash, not an emdash. Same principle, though. Hayford Peirce 01:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I do not mind much -- typography on wikipages is not very good anyway. It was just an observation.
On the other hand, I do not think that it is necessary to force uniformity on such minor points (as long as each page is consistent). Style differences between pages can be accepted, just as AE/BE differences. (Controlled) individuality is not all bad. --Peter Schmitt 20:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you do this??

Hayford, I replaced the topmost refinery photo in the draft version of the approved Petroleum refining processes article with a much better photo. Can you do the same replacement of the topmost photo in the approved version without needing to re-approve the article? No content has been changed ... only the photo was changed. Regards, Milton Beychok 22:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Hayford. Milton Beychok 01:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE don't resign as a Constable! We need you!

Hayford, PLEASE don't resign as a Constable! We need you as a KOP and need you badly!! PLEASE reconsider. Milton Beychok 19:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

  1. Hayford, are you going to make me beg? :) Whether you reconsider or not, you have been a great copper. You will definitely be missed. That wry wit in combination with the friendly curmudgeon is a perfect balance to defuse the fireworks. :) Chris Day 20:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  2. It's ham on wry. Hayford, believe me, I do appreciate your efforts and the seemingly impossible job. I tend to think it will get better if we can move the Charter. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  3. I think it was a good idea to suggest that everyone with special roles should tender resignation once the Charter is in place, but we are not there yet. --Daniel Mietchen 20:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  4. Hayford, you should do whatever it is you need to do. However, if you do not reconsider, you will definately be missed! --Chris Key 20:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  5. Hayford, if you must, you must, but I hope you will consider Daniel's point, which I second. —Anthony.Sebastian 20:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  6. Every cop needs a vacation (and, of course, deserves it), Hayford. But he should not consume it in times when he is most needed -- in emergencies. Until there will be a Charter, CZ certainly is in an exceptional state. Please extend your office at least until then. (It may well be that after that date the reasons for your intended resignation will mysteriously have disappeared.) --Peter Schmitt 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
As I just posted in the Forums: Well, thanks, everyone, for your kind words! I've heard privately from Larry and some of the other Constables and I can say that Matt and I are now discussing things. There are a couple of other private issues to be taken into account also.... Hayford Peirce 22:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Reports of My Departure Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

All: once again, thanks for your kind words of support. As I said above, there are other circumstances that, at least for moment, will remain private, but after *numerous* emails between Matt and myself I have reluctantly decided that I cannot, at this crucial moment in CZ's history, leave him in the lurch. Nor, perhaps, everyone else, although I am not fully convinced of that. As General de Gaulle (or someone else) once said, "Les cimetières sont pleins d'hommes indispensables." Hayford Peirce 23:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Good for you, Hayford ... and thanks. Milton Beychok 23:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Hayford. D. Matt Innis 23:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Best wishes for you & CZ. And it was de Gaulle who said the graveyards are full of indispensable men, may he rest in peace. —Anthony.Sebastian 17:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC), in memory of Mark Twain
Apparently it's one of those "quotations" for which no real citation can be found, just attribution. It's also attributed to Clemenceau and others. But who remembers Clemenceau except *real* geezers? Even le grand Charles is now becoming a distant memory: geez, it was *41* years ago that he stepped down! Hayford Peirce 17:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection request

Please could you protect Template:Greenapprovalbar as suggested on it's talk page by Daniel Mietchen and agreed by me. --Chris Key 23:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Hayford, but could you protect the template instead of the talk page please ;) --Chris Key 23:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, in three or four more efforts I might get it right, hehe. Okie, I'll protect the template and unprotect the talk page -- does that sound right? Hayford Peirce 23:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hehe, that sounds right to me! --Chris Key 23:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Perfection! Thanks again. --Chris Key 23:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't look right

Hayford, I blocked this account for User:Fioricey49ujk. I didn't look too closely but it looked wrong when I saw it so I blocked it in case it had slipped through. Wuz up? D. Matt Innis 17:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Matt, did you have a look at the user page? It is clearly link spam, plus an Editor everywhere! Besides, the one approved right thereafter may deserve a capitalized surname. --Daniel Mietchen 18:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
No, I didn't see it till this afternoon! I have since renamed Sven's last name to upper case. D. Matt Innis 19:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, there were *three* of them like that, plus one or two yesterday, that came in at the same time. I *thought* that I had *rejected* all of them, but must have clicked the wrong check-box at least once. (There were also a couple of Approvals that I did at that time, and I must have gotten confused!) Thanks for handling it! Hayford Peirce 19:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
LOL, I caught at work as I was getting ready to leave and didn't notice the viagra advertisement, hahaha. I'm sure it was some kind of Freudian slip :) D. Matt Innis 19:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Membership requests from spammers

Hayford, as you know, we recently had membership requests from 6 spammers. I rejected 2 of them and you rejected 4 of them. It appears that they all seem to have come from ... does anyone have the authority to track down their IP address and to block it? Milton Beychok 20:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I had been asking myself the same question. I just started a topic about this in the Forums at,3181.0.html Hayford Peirce 20:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


No need to apologize for the delay(s), Hayford. They do not matter. I consider our discussions about it as "academic" debates. (Even without any uncertainty: Why should we expect that Cops work -- without delay -- on "demand"?) --Peter Schmitt 21:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Even cops have to take time off to brush their teeth from time to time and ponder unanswerable philosophical questions.... Hayford Peirce 21:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Like who should win the French open vs who will win the French open? Chris Day 21:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Whoever can say "Open sesame!" first in French, I image. And since Ro-jay Fay-day-raire can probably speak it faster and better than even Venus Williams, he'll probably be the one.... Hayford Peirce 21:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A missing theory

Having set theory up for Approval, and noting we have game theory, is work needed on match theory? If so, what is it? Howard C. Berkowitz 00:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be the matching theory. --Peter Schmitt 00:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


Just wanted to say hi and thank you for the speedy approval and welcome message! Esther Fraser 03:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

De rien, as we Canadiens say! Glad to see you jumping right in! Hayford Peirce 03:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

About applicant Troy Alexander

Hayford, if you look at this website that Troy furnished,, his name appears as a teacher at that high school just as he said he was. Is that not enough to confirm his application? Milton Beychok 04:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I didn't like his email address. We're supposed to verify that the person sending the request actually *has* that account. I used to be *very* rigorous about this, now I've become less rigorous. But once in a while I want to see more verification. And there was something about the tone of the bio.... Anyway, if you're satisfied, go ahead and approve him. Hayford Peirce 15:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks and done. Milton Beychok 15:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

About applicant Johnathan Gray

Hayford, I am ready to approve Johnathan's application except for one thing. His email address is given as and marked as "Confirmed". However, it is incorrect and it should be (where okfn stands for Open Knowledge Foundation). If I confirm his application, then his confirmed email will be incorrect ... and I have no way to correct it. Can you use your Sysop privileges to change his confirmed email address to ?? As matters stand, I was going to confirm him as an author and advise him to provide additional information before I confirmed him as an editor. Sorry to bother you again and I hope you can help me. Milton Beychok 21:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm missing something here, Milton. His is *NOT* marked as "confirmed". Have *You* confirmed that it should really be by receiving emails from there? If so, then I will change his address for you. Hayford Peirce 21:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have confirmed his address to be (*not* and *not* ). Thanks for your help. Milton Beychok 22:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
okfn is correct, for Open Knowledge Foundation. And I do not think it is good that you discuss these things (see also the other applicant approved today) with full names (albeit spelled incorrectly — there is only one h, the one after the t) and email addresses here in public. By the way, I have attended his talk at LSWT 2010. --Daniel Mietchen 22:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
It's all academic anyway -- I've just discovered that I *can't* change his email address. I can change his Username and his "position applied for" from "Editor and Author" to "Author" only, but that's all I can do. I think that he'll have to reapply, this time using his correct email address. In fact, I've just done a little more investigating, and I can't change his email address even after he's joined. Maybe a smarter Cop, or a smarter Sysop could find some other way of handling, this, but, as far I can tell, he's gonna have to reapply, with the correct email address. Hayford Peirce 22:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, Hayford. I was just hoping to save some time if you could change his email address. But since you cannot, I will ask him to re-apply. Milton Beychok 23:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Hayford, I just received an email from Jonathan that CZ's software won't let him re-apply. I have emailed both Dan Nessett and Chris Kay for help in getting his email address changed. If they cannot straighten this out within 24 hours, I am going to approve Jonathan as an author anyhow ... and his email address can get revised later somehow. I have also asked Daniel Meitchen to contact Nessett and Kay as well. Meanwhile, I asked Jonathan to bear with us until we can get this straightened out. Milton Beychok 16:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI; no-one other than the properly signed in user is able to change an email address. Make sure *not* to approve an account until you see that it is confirmed. This verifies that the user actually owns that email address and will become the default contact email so they can use the "email password" feature (we also have no access to passwords). A user will only be able to create one account every 24 hours with the same email address. It can take up to 4 hours to get a new account email if the servers are slow. Hope this helps. D. Matt Innis 16:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I wrote Jonathan at the correct email address and he responded. That confirms his address. So does the Open Knowledge Foundation website confirm his name as working there. It was well over 24 hours between his first application and his attempt to re-apply (but our software did not let him re-apply). Are you saying that I can go ahead and confirm his application and then he can change his email address himself afterward? I need a "yes" or "no" answer, Matt. Milton Beychok 16:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I *know* that both Matt and I have *mistakenly* approved candidates whose address were *not* confirmed -- because we were in a hurry and overlooked that fact (their credentials otherwise were fine), but I don't know how things got straightened out later. Let's say that you confirm him at a (mistaken) address and his real address is The confirming email goes to, telling him that he's a member and can now log in and generate a new password. But he *can't* receive that email, because the address *doesn't exist*! What *I'm* not sure of is whether a new member can log in once he's approved *whether or not he gets a confirmatory email*. Matt does know, though, I'm sure. So you'll have to wait for him to answer.... Hayford Peirce 17:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Hayford, I *will* wait for Matt to answer. In the event that Matt says go ahead, I will not only confirm Jonathan at the EPA confirmation page and let the software send his approval notice to the wrong address, but I will send him an email at his correct address as well. Thanks for your comments. Milton Beychok 17:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
This is bugging me enough that I think I'll set up an experiment to apply as a new member with a purposely wrong email address and then see what happens. And then I'LL WRITE DOWN EXACTLY WHAT THE PROCESS IS and post it into the Constabulary How-To page, with instructions on what to do the next time this happens. Which it will.... Hayford Peirce 17:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that I can go ahead and confirm his application and then he can change his email address himself afterward? I need a "yes" or "no" answer, Matt. Milton Beychok 16:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No, he doesn't have his password and has no way of getting it if the system sends it to the wrong email address. D. Matt Innis 18:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I just confirmed this myself by setting up a new account with the WRONG email address. It was then IMPOSSIBLE for me to get the password sent to me.
Matt may have a better idea, but here is what I suggest: A.) Have Jonathan wait 24 hours from NOW. Don't let him do a THING about applying for Citizendium or trying to apply. THEN have him start all over again, this time using the correct address. The key: unless he can access the automatically generated password that is sent from CZ, he will NEVER be able to log in. What has happened *before*, several times, particularly with EZ student applicants, is that they used a SECOND email account address in their application, so that the password actually COULD be found by going to the other address. In Jonathan's case, this can't happen.... Hayford Peirce 18:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Matt, please don't get offended, but this is becoming ridiculous. Why not let me approve him as an author and let the system send his password to the wrong address? But you then send him the password to his correct address of along with telling him how to log in and correct his email address. That is much more simple than asking him to re-register. I assume that you can find out what his password is. Milton Beychok 18:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
No Milt, nobody can find out what his password is - even with direct database access. The only way to recover a lost password is to get it emailed to the address that is registered to the account. If that email address is unavaliable, then obviously that email will never arrive. --Chris Key 18:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) This what I have just added to the Constabulary page -- Matt, is this enough, do you think?

Most times when a new applicant is unable to log in for the first time after requesting an account it is because the applicant has been approved even though his email address was not Confirmed on the application. But generally speaking this is because the applicant has given a second email address on the application rather than his main address, which he principally looks at. Therefore he does not find the automated response from CZ until he looks at his email in the secondary address, to which it has been sent.

Occasionally, however, an applicant may mistakenly type his email address incorrectly: He types, for instance, "" instead of "". If this happens, and his request is mistakenly approved, he will NEVER be able to log in because the confirmatory email with the CZ log-in password will have been sent to an address that does not exist and that can never be accessed.

There is a SINGLE solution: the applicant must be told that he must now wait 24 hours before making another request for membership. The key here is the 24 hours. If he tries to apply before the 24 hours are up, he will simply be told that his request cannot be processed.
Hayford Peirce 18:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, Hayford, that works. D. Matt Innis 19:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I surrender. I will email Jonathon and ask him to wait 24 hours and then re-apply. But our system really needs to be revised somehow so that a simple error by an applicant can be more easily remedied. Milton Beychok 18:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Just one of about a million things that need to be fixed. But, in terms of priorities, I would put this pretty far down the list. Hayford Peirce 19:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
And make sure that he decides whether he is Jonathan or Jonathon or whatever, hehe.... Hayford Peirce 19:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Milt, I hope you understand that this is not our doing. It's the way the wiki software works. That way no-one knows anyones password. Just make sure it says "confirmed" before approving and that problem won't occur. You were just unlucky to have approved an "unconfirmed account" with a "bad" email address. Had he had a good email, it would not have mattered - he still would have gotten the email with the password. Both errors together were catastrophic... kinda like the gulf oil spill! D. Matt Innis 19:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
There is one alternative. A SysOp (such as a Constable) can go to Special:Createaccount and create a second account manually with the correct email address. The previous request can then be declined. There are a few issues with this however. The original user name may be taken, so a variation will need to be used or the old account renamed. The user page and talk pages will have to be created manually complete with categories. Also, a SysOp will have to go to Special:UserCredentials and fill in the bio/cv/etc. Overall, Hayfords solution may be better. --Chris Key 19:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the thinking, Chris, but I think that this is *far* too complicated. This is NOT a problem that arises very often. Daniel just sent *another* possible solution to us via the Register account apparatus but I have rejected that also. I hate to sound grouchy about this. Why can't he just wait 24 hours and then reapply? Hayford Peirce 20:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
cleaned up comment some. D. Matt Innis 20:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Chris, I attempted to create the account manually, but the system recognized that there was already an account request with that name and errored. I figure that is why Jonathan could not re-apply and have now rejected the account request. I will try it again now. D. Matt Innis 20:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Nope, didn't work. We have to wait the 24 hours. The more we try, we may be causing him to have to wait longer. I think Hayford is right, though I've edited his comment some ;) D. Matt Innis 20:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
As a more long-term solution, it is possible to increase the number of account requests an IP address can make in a day. By default it is 1 per 24 hours, but this can be increased by editing $wgAccountRequestThrottle in LocalSettings.php. This change would need to be requested by a bug ticket on bugzilla, discussed on the forums and approved by Greg, then implemented by someone with root server access (Most likely Dan Nessett). --Chris Key 20:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it was decidedly placed at 24 hours by those that set up the system to prevent multiple account creations from the same IP address, so it's part of the real name and verifiable function. Any change would need to be thought through thoroughly.. and not on Hayford's page - it makes him edgy :) D. Matt Innis 20:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Matt, I *never* "approved" him. I did not even put him "on hold". His application is still pending and in the queue. I found his email address to be incorrect in the course of my due diligence check of his identity. Once I found his application had an incorrect address, I started asking for the help of Hayford and then you and Chris Kay and Dan Nessett ... and that opened up this can of worms. I have now personally emailed him at his correct address, explained the situation and asked him to re-apply after 24 hours. To date, all of my communications with him have been via personal emails to his correct address. The only error that occurred was his providing an incorrect address and I repeat that our software needs to be revised to provide a simpler remedy for cases such as this one. Milton Beychok 20:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Is the fact that his current application is still in the queue going to create a problem when he does re-apply?? 20:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, no wonder he was still in the queue. Yes, that would be why he could not re-apply, but I have since deleted it so he should be able to apply within the 24 hours. D. Matt Innis 21:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that now he has been rejected he should be able to reapply after the 24 hours. I am by no means certain. If he does encounter problems he may need to pick a variation of his name, such as using a middle initial or shortening his first name to John. --Chris Key 21:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Gasoline/Draft due for re-approval today

Hayford, just a reminder. Milton Beychok 18:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Tomorrow, I think, if my reading skills are still intact.... Hayford Peirce 18:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
You're right ... I goofed. Milton Beychok 19:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Green delete box

Please see my comments at the (somewhat odd) venue of the talk page for Doom (video game). --Chris Key 18:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

But should it have waited for 2012?

Deleting doom has a rather dramatic sound to it...or is this wikievangelistichealing?Howard C. Berkowitz 23:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies from Aleta

Sorry, but I'm travelling overseas and have had some unexpected happenings. Haven't been on the 'Net and forgot all about the write a thon for June.

I can't remember my password to the forums, so could you please pass on my apologies?

It's now Wednesday in the US, I think, and I'll be on a plane for the next umpteen hours. You all can feel free to carry on without me.



Is reformatting references a copyedit?

If you have a moment, your official opinion would be most useful here. --Chris Key 18:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen that there was a discussion going on about this and I really can't see why we should be concerned about reformatting some references. If you changed the name of a book or something like that it would be a copyedit, but mere reformatting, I don't think so.... Hayford Peirce 18:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you. Thanks Hayford. --Chris Key 19:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll drop in to say that style is a content issue, so formatting can be a content edit, but it's not something that I would put much emphasis on when considering it for approval. If you were editing a games article, I would not care, but if you were editing one of Anthony.Sebastian's Life references, I'd be a little more cautious that it doesn't change the style. D. Matt Innis 21:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree in general. Reformatting can be important for style within *text* -- there was an old Nero Wolfe mystery in which he was trying to figure out if some author had plariarized another and he got hold of a lot of works by both of them and read them carefully to see how they dealt with paragraphing, saying, in his Wolfeish manner, that a writer could attempt to change his style but that he would never be able to change his philosophy of paragraphing. The book was called Plot It Yourself, and Archie, the narrator, at this point says in exasperation to the reader, "Paragraph it yourself." Anyway, as I understand *this* particular issue, it is only concerning reformatting done to *reference* books. I certainly don't think of that as being a concern, unless it was done in such a major way that some other Citizen might complain. Hayford Peirce 22:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Doom (video game)

Technically Doom (video game) is due for approval today (it's 3am here). Practically, this is just a reminder for tomorrow. I hate time zones. --Chris Key 02:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it on the 7th if Matt hasn't already done so -- I thought that there was still some back and forth going on here.... Hayford Peirce 03:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Brits: Gold, Sword and Juno Beaches. Yanks: Omaha and Utah Beaches.
Ah, what you do when you talk about South Vietnam and someone asks if Robert E. Lee was their chief general. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Whoever went up Pointe du Hoc has got my respect. RIP Hayford Peirce 04:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been to Normandy, but to fully appreciate the valor, walking battlefields can give amazing insight. As a teenager, I struggled, grabbing at trees for support, carrying nothing but my lunch, at Little Round Top at Gettysburg. That the 20th Maine and 14th Alabama met in bayonet combat and even managed to keep standing is unbelievable. That reminds me that Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, not just one of the finest soldiers but one of the finest men the United States ever produced, really needs to get finished as an article.
At Omaha Beach, remember the 1st and 29th Infantry Divisions in the first wave...and after these years, they'd probably remember, with respect, the German 352nd Infantry Division, a first-line unit that just happened to be having a training exercise there. Remember Hobart's Funnies on the British beaches. Remember 617 Squadron flying utterly precise electronic deception, unglamorous but essential. Think of the London Controlling Section that convinced Hitler it was merely a diversion and the real invasion was coming at the Pas de Calais. Don't forget the "Wheezers and Dodgers", the engineers that made the logistic miracles of Mulberries and PLUTO and otherwise creating a port in the middle of nowhere. Howard C. Berkowitz 07:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Almost there. See this. D. Matt Innis 13:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Executive Committee mail - help

Hi Hayford

Do you know where I go to fix my mail setup so I receive Executive Committee mail? Aleta Curry 20:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Aleta, I thought it would under My Preferences in the email section at the very bottom of the page but, apparently, it isn't. Nor can I find it anywhere else. Oh, wait, is that the Committee or Council that Larry set up to advise him a couple of years ago? I was on one before I became a Cop. If that's the case, you better try asking some of the other people.... Hayford Peirce 22:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one - the advisory one. Aleta Curry 23:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Aleta, try asking Joe, he is on the committee, too. D. Matt Innis 00:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
If it's just the informal advisory one, then no message has been sent on it for at least a year, I would say.... Hayford Peirce 01:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, since I'm no longer on it, how would *I* know how much it's being used? Hayford Peirce 01:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Hahahahahahahahaha Aleta Curry 02:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Constable authority to withhold approval

Hayford, Im looking for anything that gives a constable the right to withhold a properly executed approval process for any reason, including an improperly formed name. I can certainly see arguing for the name change, but that becomes a content issue so once you've made the complaint, you can't approve the article anyway because you become a participant in the article content... a catch 22. D. Matt Innis 03:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that as a Cop I am now excluded. But that means that as an Author I can argue this vigorously, and I'm sure going to. Roger is absolutely, 100% *wrong* about this, and I will go down with the ship on this issue.... Hayford Peirce 04:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I sure hope the ship doesn't go down over a name! I'd also hate to lose more good editors or authors over something that can certainly be fixed once the editorial council takes effect. Keep it civil ;-) D. Matt Innis 16:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Can I interest you in a Marcel Bigeard article?

One of the actual Centurions -- I mention him briefly in the Battle of Dien Bien Phu -- has just died; reactions and links to French-language obituaries at [4]. While I can add some material from Bernard Fall, most source material is in French. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, but haven't yet read the obits. I'll see if I can add anything later on. Hayford Peirce 00:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Heinrich Mueller

Why did you delete the redirect? Instead of the Definition? --Peter Schmitt 00:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't, I deleted the Lemma article. Hayford Peirce 01:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Originally, a Definition subpage looks quite similar to the (lemma) main page. This can easily lead to confusion about where you are. (But not if one is a redirect, and the other has a speedydelete template.) In any case, Special:Log/delete shows that you accidentally deleted the main page with a redirect. --Peter Schmitt 11:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


I changed the status back to 1. See this. D. Matt Innis 18:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just saw it. Geez, I'll get out of the Approval business! What about the moves that I've already made? And what about the *OTHER* flippin' article set for the 19th? Hayford Peirce 18:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
No problem, see my notes at the bottom of both pages in the Toward Approval sections. D. Matt Innis 18:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I've sent out some pings to other Editors. The three-workgroup limit is unfortunate since we could probably get a Computers editor. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I can see both arguments. I guess we need to go with the three most pertinent workgroups regardless of whether we have the editors on site to keep the integrity of the approval process in tact. Otherwise we'd have your name on ALL our articles, haha D. Matt Innis 18:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Greengrocer's apostrophe needs homeopathic excision

Yes, in the first paragraph of the approved article, homeopathy. Presumably you're able to remove it, being a Kop? I came across it by chance, clicking on 'random article'. Ro Thorpe 00:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect nomination

Hi Hayford, noticed you were online. Please take a look at Talk:Principle of psychological acceptability --Chris Key 18:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, I beat you to it! Hayford Peirce 18:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Approval process

I just updated the approval process slightly, see [5].

The change is to make sure that the "Update any redirects that point to the original title" box is NOT checked when performing the move from XXX to XXX/Draft. If this is not done then any redirects that pointed to the article will change to point to the draft copy, instead of the new approved copy.

I noticed this when I typed Doom into the search box and was sent to Doom (video game)/Draft instead of just Doom (video game). I have fixed this also: [6]. --Chris Key 13:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


For all the help signing everyone up, three cheers!Pat Palmer 02:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a guy named Saajan Patel who originally didn't have a Confirmed address,then never reapplied.... Hayford Peirce 04:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Protect Template:Infobox CVG please

Hi Hayford, could you protect Template:Infobox_CVG please? It is used on a couple of approved articles so far (and hopefully more in the future) and should rarely need editing. Cheers --Chris Key 19:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Hayford. I don't think anyone will object, and the approval process does say here that "Editors and sysops need to be aware that a protected approved page draws on templates which contain text. Consideration should be given to subjecting key subject-specific templates for banners, boxes and footers to protection and editorial approval in step with major pages." --Chris Key 20:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
You're the expert on this, not me. I don't expect anyone to object, but I thought I'd stick that in just in case.... Hayford Peirce 21:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm welcome!

Thanks for the warm welcome! I look forward to reading the welcome package and writing at CZ. Thanks so much for making me feel appreciated.

Mary Ash 00:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Mary Ash

How am I doing?

Here's an article I started writing tonight. I don't like the title, so if you have a better name go for it, and feel free to change it. I guess that's a title request. I tried to do a title request on the page and couldn't figure out the wiki syntax. So far I am having a lot of fun here.

Article: [7] UFO.

BTW I was born in Arizona and lived about 10 years in Phoenix. I still live in the desert but now I am closer to the mountains. Much cooler here although very windy during fall and spring.

Thanks in advance for your help, Mary Ash 04:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Mary Ash

Hi, Mary, glad to see you enjoying yourself! As for the title, I have taken it upon myself to Move the article to the more explicit Unidentified flying object. I also created four or five Redirects from UFO etc to lead to the new title.
Not that you're doing it here with the UFO article, but I note that you have a long journalist background. That, I'm assuming, means you're in the habit of creating articles in the standard newspaper fashion (and Wikipedia, for that matter) of having the main, overall info in the lede paragraph, then working your way down through the story, paragraph by paragraph, each one of decreasing importance, so that the bottom one can always be chopped off. *Some* of our articles here are definitely written that way but, in general, we tend to try to write more "holistic" articles, ones that take a more scholarly and generalized approach to things. In others, we're writing a New Yorker article rather than an AP story. At least that's my impression. In any case, I'm sure that this won't be a problem for you!
Here in the Sonoran Desert we're having a truly brutal summer. Hot, no rain at all until two days ago, and now, for the last week, terrible humidity. So far, the worst of the 17 summers I've been here.... Hayford Peirce 16:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. It will take a very long time to write this article as there is plenty to write about. I'm sure I'll be fleshing it out, as will others, so it will grow and develop. I love writing in wikis as it is a collaborative effort where we share our creative talents to make everything better.

Yes, monsoon season should be upon where you live. We have our monsoon season which runs about the same time as yours except we get a lot less water. We have less than eight inches of water per year here. It is very dry and the winters are nippy. I wouldn't change a thing as I love the cooler weather.

I'll go back and re-register at the forums using my real name...sigh...I like anonymity as I like my privacy. It's just the way I am.

Have a lovely day!

Mary Ash 17:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Mary Ash (MA)

I forgot to ask: Is the "inuse" or "underconstruction" tags used here? 17:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Mary Ash

No. Are those WP tags? I've forgotten most of the stuff that went on there. We use very few tags (or templates) here, particularly not "citation needed" and things of that nature. If you think a citation is needed, then bring it up on the Talk page. And, of course, our Talk pages don't have all of the template-generated clutter that one often sees at WP. Hayford Peirce 17:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No plans for the Sandbox

No plans for the Sandbox. I may use a text editor and paste the article in. I am getting tired of having to defend everything written. I am slowly getting to the skeptics including my favorite skeptic Phil Klass who I had the pleasure of meeting once. I would like to suggest an "inuse" tag to prevent editing conflicts as I've must have spent an hour re-doing what I've written thanks to people editing over me. BTW did I indent enuff? I'm pooped and I thought CZ would be a relaxed place to's almost as bad as my one article for Wikipedia. Speaking of WP I thought you could use them as a reference as long as you didn't copy and paste verbatim. I'll find other sources...

Mary Ash 23:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Mary Ash

Hayford, when I created Mary's sandbox and explained to her how she might use it, I did not mean to intimate that the mainspace article should be "off limits" to everyone else. I meant that she could use the sandbox to flesh out and finish her version of the article which she could then present as an alternative to the edited mainspace article. Upon re-reading what I told her about the sandbox, I can see that I probably didn't make that clear enough and I apologize for that. Milton Beychok 00:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


I'm not sure what I did but I apologize. Finally, you have worn me out in one day. I thought Wikipedia was tough but you guys have them beat. The article is all yours.

I have tried to start working on the skeptical viewpoint but I give up. I'm tired and I have a headache.

And I'm outta here!

Mary Ash 23:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Mary Ash


I'll take over as constable on UFOs as you've edited and need to recuse yourself. Do keep your comments civil! D. Matt Innis 11:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Matt, also respect Editor rulings on content, such as comments from Milt, and, if not as an editor, my own expertise in the relevant sensors and systems. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I do respect editor rulings when they are made properly (see the way it is supposed to work). Have you seen something to the contrary? I'll be happy to withdraw any of my positions. D. Matt Innis 14:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, there is
. Editors will encounter "problem users" and will certainly want to do something. As editor, while patience is greatly appreciated, you need not go to superhuman lengths to tolerate low quality or bad faith work, or abusive behavior. At the most extreme, you may recommend to the Constabulary that authors be banned. But there are many things that editors can do before going to this length. Just for example, if an author appears open to advice, you might recommend some background reading. Or, without actually getting a constable involved, you might ask an author to take a break for a time to get proper perspective. Finally, you might informally request that an author not edit an article, rather than "make it official" by involving the Constabulary.
I began by making suggestions on the talk page, and, rightly or wrongly, made edits and additions to give examples. Milt, subsequently, got to the point of making a formal ruling about not reverting changes in footnotes, and several people were commenting about reverts.
From my perspective, Constable arguments about easing off and letting people "be bold" should not have been made on the talk page, which seemed to me to enable problem behavior. An email to the more experienced Citizens involved would have been appropriate.
I also believe that Hayford's frustration was informative and, to remove it on grounds of professionalism when nothing had been done about revert wars, was undercutting both formal Editor as well as community guidance. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Howard on this. I saw a pattern of misbehavior, to which she was specifically not addressing herself. Moreover, she appeared to be going out of her way to contradict our advice, which was given in all friendliness. You say elsewhere that Authors come here to write and "have fun" and that we should let them write their articles. Wrong, wrong, wrong! They are here to write articles for the Citizendium Project that are *correct* while ALSO having fun. By "correct" I mean a whole host of things, among which, obviously, are following CZ styles, guidelines, rules, and principles. If they don't do that, then what's to keep Andy Anyboy in Lumphead, Kansas, coming in and writing a blog about his pet hamster? Are we supposed to allow him to write 10,000 words about it before we "gently" tell him that the whole thing will have to be deleted? I also think that you were wrong to delete my comments. If I weren't a Constable, I'd appeal to the Constabulary about this (no joke). Since you're the senior Assistant Chief Constable, I'll accept your ruling on it, but, once again, I think you should rethink your actions here. You seem to be saying that *we* have driven a new Author away. I think that Howard and Milton will back me up when I say that *she* has driven herself away. Please review the literally *thousands* of friendly words that I addressed to her in various places in the course of yesterday -- were those the words of someone trying to drive someone else away? I think not! Hayford Peirce 16:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Y'know, there's a practical problem here, and indeed in things like Moon Landing Hoax. It would be one thing if we had hot and cold running Editors in all disciplines, but this is not the first time I've found that I couldn't stay as a talk-page-only Editor because the author didn't understand the underlying principles.

You might remember that I gave up, in Moon Landing Hoax, on trying to explain how the assertions made very little sense if one actually knew how electro-optical tracking worked, on which I wrote a quick article. I didn't go off and write an article on reliability of visual impressions or perceptual psychology, but did bring in quotes from peer-reviewed sources. The author removed them without discussion, and removed other things I considered reasonable expert writing, calling them "opinion". Add to this the comments on plans to write about the "skeptical view", and increasingly I got the impression that the author wanted only things supporting of the "ufologist" position.

What do I do when I'm the experienced Citizen, who also happens to be an Editor, with the most background in technical intelligence, sensors, etc.? Milt is an Engineering Editor, but he's no more going to tell me about the standard procedures in air defense -- extremely relevant here -- than I'm going to tell him about standard operating procedures in a refinery. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It is my personal opinion that an Editor making edits to a page should not prevent that Editor from making Editorial decisions regarding that article. In fact, the Editor Policy actually states that "when an editor has made a certain edit, and has specifically requested that some limited portion of text should not be changed (or that it must not be changed in certain limited ways), then authors should respect the request." suggesting that editing an article does not prevent them from making Editorial decisions. The only thing that an Editor cannot do when an article has been edited by them is individually nominate it for approval (and I'm not even 100% convinced that ruling should stay, although it should definately be strictly controlled).
Similarly I don't think it is necessary for a Constable to recuse himself just because he edited the article. Although he has said he won't, what would happen if Matt now decided to edit the article? Or an issue occured on another article that both Hayford and Matt had edited? Would we then be forced to rely on the inactive Constables? --Chris Key 17:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Re: the Constables. This is, I think, a tradition has have grown up and I don't know whether it has been spelled out clearly anywhere. I know that for a year or more now Matt has diligently kept absolutely away from editing any article in which he might *possibly* find himself having to use his Constabulary powers. Even though he was knowledgeable about some of the articles in question and could have made active contributions. If we had a dozen active Kops, of course, this would never be a problem. As it is, Matt and I have to be careful to make sure that one of us is always free. The system, for the moment, is working, and we've never got to a point in which something would have to be, theoretically, appealed to the Chief Constable or the Editorial Board or whatever. Hayford Peirce 17:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to respond with my observations

It starts with a sweet lady who starts by thanking Hayford for the warm welcome. She works 6 hours to to start her article on UFOS. She goes to bed and wakes to see that her article has really grown! Wow, this is what collaboration is.. but wait a minute, she doesn't recognize the article anymore - so much was changed and added. That's not what she had in mind for her article, so she starts to move things around. She obviously needs help because she is trying to make a line across the page using ===================. She removes stuff that has nothing to do with UFOS, that's about aliens. She goes to the talk page and she sees talk about Fringe and UFO nuts Meanwhile, Howard is adding stuff to counter what she is writing. She moves the history section to a different spot. Howard claims that she deleted stuff and restores it, but it's really just moved. She changes it back. She dutifully fills in information that Hayford left a note in the article, but Howard barks We don't use wikipedia as a source. Milt chimes in with please learn how to do this. Then god forbid, she deletes one of Howards skeptic remarks. She replaces a reference with one from wikipedia, but this time Hayford just removes the whole thing, like Howard says. Milt jumps in, too. She makes her last edit and there is now nothing left of her original article.

No, once someone edits an article, they become emotionally involved, no matter who you are. You cannot objectively see the arguments the same. I don't read the articles, I just watch the talk page and I see how people ar behaving. That is what a constable should do. What I saw was a sweet lady, who just needed a little wiki editing help, get blindsided by three of our best in twenty four hours. And she wasn't even a fringe writer.

Are you saying I should just sit around and watch. I did the job you asked me to do. If you have a problem with my actions, please take it to a higher level. D. Matt Innis 19:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As you well know, other than perhaps Ruth, there is no higher level at present. Frankly, I am not comfortable in bringing anything to her, because I have no sense of her as a person or contributor because she isn't visible.
I would disagree with some of your assessments above, especially about the outright removal of material, and her insistence on imposing her definition of UFO and controlling the scope of the article. With hindsight, although I had no way of knowing that she'd be so insistent, the article should quickly have moved to a sandbox until it was open to editing.
We have different visions of Citizendium, Matt, and there's little point to arguing it here. I suspect that once the Charter is implemented, some people are going to leave. Who will leave will depend on the environment that results and the Darwinian adaptation that takes. I'll note that in the IETF and other groups, there is professionalism, but also there is a saying that there are "full contact design reviews". Howard C. Berkowitz 19:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for laying out your point of view so precisely, Matt. I can see, from your side, without reading the article at all, why you feel about this as you do. I also agree with Howard on all of the points that he makes. It was, let's say, an unfortunate set of circumstances that led a new Author to begin an article about a touchy subject that also happens to interest a number of the more active Editors and Authors. As I said somewhere, I think in the section of mine that you deleted, if her first article had been about Welk farming in the Firth of Moray in Northern Scotland she could have written 10,000 words about it and no one would have even glanced at it, except maybe Milton would probably have spent 20 seconds doing the Metadata for her. I'm sorry it's worked out like this, but if I wanted to take the time I could go down the list of actions from *my* point of view for every single thing I did and wrote and justify them, at least to *my* satisfaction. As Howard says above, and I have observed in the couple of years that I've been here, Matt and I have different ideas about CZ articles, what there are, how they should be written, and how they should be edited. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but occasionally a problem like this is going to arise simply because of he dynamics of the situation. Hayford Peirce 20:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Is there cloning of Lawrences in the Firth of Forth, or did you mean whelk? :-) Howard C. Berkowitz 20:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, whelk, whatever the hell they are, clam-like critters, I guess. Richard Condon's The Ecstasy Business is about a Welsh whelk gatherer who becomes the world's most famous male movie actor and greatest lover. Improbable, of course, whoever heard of a Welsh actor? Hayford Peirce 20:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll have to ask one of the local fishermen -- I think they are called something else on Cape Cod. Does he also gather Welsh rabbits? My knowledge of firths is more associated with fifths. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

About CZ:Formatting of embedded, inline references

Glad you like it, Hayford. I hope that others will also like it. Thanks, Milton Beychok 04:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the info. I have removed the image in question. Mary Ash 00:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Moi? I haven't said anything about a photo anywhere, have I? Hayford Peirce 01:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

David H Crocker's address is now confirmed

Just in case you haven't noticed that yet. Milton Beychok 02:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't, no. Geez, I check the Constabulary email box about a zillion times a day looking for messages from people I'm trying to get in and if I don't see a message there from someone like Mr. Crocker saying, "Oh, yes, I just found the CZ email and I clicked on it and I hope now that every is OK," then I don't check much on the Hold list. Sometimes I do, and most times I don't. But thanks for the heads-up, and I hope that he becomes a productive Citizen. Hayford Peirce 03:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

you've got mail

You should have e-mail from me now. Thanks, Hayford. Aleta Curry 04:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Danke, as we diggers say! Hayford Peirce 04:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo Gallery Looks Nice

Checked out the photos of the Croque Monsieur sandwich. Nice! Did you make the Pullman bread? Did you have problems getting the bread out of the pan? The first couple times I made bread in the Pullman pan the bread top stuck. I now line the top of the pan with parchment paper. Problem solved. Mary Ash 00:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! No problems. The first couple of times I used Crisco on the pan. Then I tried it without Crisco on the third or fourth try because the sides felt a little greasy to me after I'd finished cooking. My recipe has 6 TB of melted butter in it -- maybe that's enough to keep it from sticking. Or from sticking very much. Or maybe my pan has become seasoned, like a cast-iron skillet. It's actually sourdough pullman that I'm making, but I put in yeast to make it rise faster -- I don't want to wait 24 hours for it to rise. Hayford Peirce 01:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Jet Set Willy

Hi Hayford, unless I'm getting my dates wrong Jet Set Willy was due for approval yesterday. --Chris Key 10:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I lost track of the dates, what with other baloney going on -- I'll take care of it. Hayford Peirce 16:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
And of Plane (geometry) if that is not too much, please. --Peter Schmitt 16:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Practice makes perfect! Hayford Peirce 16:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Plane approval not complete

You made an error in the move which needs fixing. See Peter's talk page. --Chris Key 18:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Would appreciate your comments

Hayford, I just finished a help article about how to archive user talk pages. It can be seen at User:Milton Beychok/Sandbox. Before I upload it into Chris Key's new structure for help articles, I would sure appreciate any comments you may have. Thanks, Milton Beychok 16:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look in a moment. Hayford Peirce 17:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Something strange with approval of Petroleum naphtha

Hayford, this regards the recent approval of Petroleum naphtha. Although the Draft version of the approved article has the references intact, somehow the locked Approved article does not have the references. What happened?

Matt did the final approval and I have asked him about this, but he doesn't seem to be online today. Can you fix it, Hayford? Milton Beychok 18:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I found out what the problem is: ALL of the footnote references in the main text HAVE BEEN STRIPPED AWAY! In other words, there are no longer any <Ref)xxx</Ref) thingees with text inside. Completely gone. Très strange! I dunno what to do. Two suggestions: send Matt a private message. Or wait for him to return. And/or post a message in the Help or Technical Forums. Sorry! Hayford Peirce 19:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Just a thought. Since no one has revised the Draft version of the article since it was approved yesterday, can you just simply Re-approve the Draft version? Milton Beychok 19:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Why re-approval? It is a copy-edit (fixing a mistake). Just copy the correct=draft version to the approved page and update. --Peter Schmitt 19:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
That will probably work -- but lemme think about it for a moment or two. ARE YOU CERTAIN THAT THE DRAFT IS 100% CORRECT? Hayford Peirce 20:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Hayford, the History page of the Draft version clearly shows that no one has made any changes since it was approved by Matt yesterday. So, yes, I am sure it is 100% the same as it was before it was approved. So if you simply copied the entire Draft article as suggested by Peter, that should work. Milton Beychok 20:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I have compared the Draft with the Approved version before making the remark. You can easily check yourself now: diff. It is precisely the references that were missing. This must have happened when Matt copied the text and transferred it to the new page. He must have used some tool that automatically removed everything between ref-tags. --Peter Schmitt 20:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
That's why I'm thinking it was WikiEd that I added when Anthony.Sebastion asked on the forum. This is the first approval since I added that feature. It makes the references look different in the edit window. I wonder if when I copied to paste it left off the references. I also switched to Safari as my browser at the same time because WikiEd soens't work on my IE8.0. D. Matt Innis 21:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I was just talking to my computer guru friend about this strange occurrence (and other problems with browsers) and he said, "Every browser is like an interpreter -- it reads new text line by line and interprets what to do with it. So if one browser sees some text with two curly {s in it ahead of a SPACE, it does one thing, but MAYBE another browser, which is being rewritten by some gear-heads somewhere, looks at the SAME thing and decides that it doesn't like that SPACE and simply gets rid of it." I think that this must be what happened when you did the Copy and Paste of the text -- the browser decided that it didn't like those <Ref) things for some reason and just decided to ignore them entirely. Make sense? Hayford Peirce 22:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm just happy that it got straightened out. Thanks all, Milton Beychok 22:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)\

References for your review as you seemed to have missed them

I posted the original article I submitted on the discussion page. The top two independent references reference your vision of the "fantasy" as you called it. One source is in English from a German American web site while the other is from a German web site. I used Google translate to German to English. Both independent references back up the "fantasy" as you call it. On the exlinks page I also included numerous independent references all stating the same thing. By-the-way the term Kaiser is German for Emperor. So indeed the term Kaiser would be used by a German writer in reference to a Byzantine emperor. Get your facts straight before accusing me of poor research. I suspect I've done far more than a lot of other contributors here. I posted this message here, so you could read it as you just might miss it on the discussion page, much like you missed by independent references. And as I posted on the discussion page I have contacted a constable for assistance. I'm not sure what I did to cause you such antagonistic (or in simpler terms hostile) behavior towards me. Mary Ash 21:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Not relying on Google translators, I observe what Goetz von Berlichengen said to the Bishop of Bamberg.
Mary, as far as accusations of antagonism: Pot. Kettle. Black. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


Hayford, the redirects are not needed because searching for Gruyere or Gruyère both find both Gruyere and Gruyère. Moreover, Gruyere needs disambiguation, and the proper title for the cheese is Gruyère (cheese). --Peter Schmitt 17:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Peter, redirects are not for you and me, they are for my American girlfriend, say, who comes to CZ and simply types "gruyere" into the search box. Or maybe she types "grouyere". We CANNOT have too many redirects, in fact they are *vital*!
While I can't precisely list the variants, it appears the search engine will find versions with diacritics if given an argument without them, but the wikilinking mechanisms is much more precise about diacritics, capitalization, and punctuation. I have an article on the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical that constantly failed linking until I did copy-and-paste from the article; my suspicion is what I thought was a hyphen might have been an emdash or endash.
In other words, don't assume a redirect or wikilink works unless it's tested. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
From what I have seen, the search engine will find a diacriticed version of a word when given the plain version but will not go directly to it. It treats it as a spelling mistake. Also, as Howard pointed out, interwiki linking must be exact. Therefore the redirect is essential. --Chris Key 17:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh. Well. I myself am not all concerned with the larger issues of Internet searching -- I am concerned solely with having enough CZ redirects so that anyone coming here and looking for something is certain to find it. Hayford Peirce 17:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
No, Hayford -- I'm referring to the behavior of CZ's own search engine. It's more tolerant than wikilinks -- indeed, it delivers far too many false positives. sigh Google can be put there, but I'd much rather have a search tool that provides more expert tools such as proximity search (e.g., "phrase A" if and only in the same sentence/paragraph as "phrase B") and regular expressions. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent: edit conflict) "grouyere" would be a spelling mistake. Do you really suggest that we should try to redirect all possible incorrect spellings?

But my remark was meant for redirects because of an accented letter (è). These are not needed -- or so I thought because of this forum post -- because the search engine includes this possibility automatically. However, after checking the post again, it may only say that it would be possible to have this convenient behaviour. Then, for the time being, such redirects are indeed needed. (Testing is no longer possible because the redirects are all in place.)

Finally, I wanted to point out that the redirects should point to gruyere (disambiguation) and the cheese should have the title gruyère (cheese)

Chris, I do not think that redirects should be given solely for wikilinking purposes. Wikilinks should point directly to the target page.

I'm not suggesting that we need redirects for *all* possible spelling mistakes, certainly not variations on gruyere -- it's necessary for *some* commonly misspelled names or words, however. Maybe they should go to a disamb. as you say, but I never like setting those things up. What would there be at a disambig for Gruyere? A province, a cheese, a district? Hayford Peirce 18:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the search does bring up the diacritic version - however it does not automatically go to it. That is what I meant by that forum post. --Chris Key 18:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If you read this, I would appreciate your help

Hayford, just in case you still look at this page occasionally, I have just written a new article and the title will be Smog when I upload it into the article namespace. It is currently in my sandbox at User:Milton Beychok/Sandbox.

I know that you are probably not an expert on the subject. However, I would very much appreciate your review of it and giving me any comments, additions, deletions, typo corrections, or revisions you care to offer on my sandbox talk page. I am fairly sure that there must be some parts which could be better written from the viewpoint of clarity and understanding.

Thanks in advance, Milton Beychok 02:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

On your election-complications hypothetical

So René Descartes walks into a bar and orders a glass of Bordeaux. When he has finished it, the bartender asks him, "Would you like another glass?" Descartes replies, "Oh, I think not," and poof! he disappears. Bruce M. Tindall 20:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I was born in Newark, New Jersey. There is controversy if he had Newark in mind when he wrote "that which does not destroy makes me the stronger", or if the special case of "that which does not destroy me makes me the stranger." Strangeness has multiple special cases, though, primarily found in California. One cannot forget the boast of the Japanese who said "Japan has the best-organized anarchies in the world!: Howard C. Berkowitz 21:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

One argument for cold storage

The turkey might spoil.

Actually, we might want to have a top-level article on turkey recipes. I frequently substitute turkey cutlets for veal. Turkey mole is a Mexican classic. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Turkey recipes

Thanks for your message. First, as you see on the turkey-recipe talk page, I wanted to make sure I understood the nuclear option that was being proposed. I assume Milton means "nuke the recipes page with extreme prejudice," but he said nuke the "article." When I see the answer I will say more, if you like. Bruce M. Tindall 22:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There are varying levels of turkey nuking. When the turkey is in the fireball, recipes are moot. Now, appropriate levels of radiation can sterilize turkey, but you really don't want radioactive turkeys. If Spiderman came from the bite of a radioactive spider, what would a hostile radioactive turkey produce? Howard C. Berkowitz 22:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Bruce: Just for the record, I did not use the words "nuke" or "extreme prejudice". As for what I meant, I think that all of the "Roast turkey" cluster (that includes the article and all of its subpages) should be deleted. Now that the original author has been permanently blocked and peace will hopefully reign again in Citizendium, I think the cluster that created so much controversy and took up so much time of so many people should also be banished ... based on the reasons given in CZ:Article Deletion Policy. I hope that makes clear my opinion. I now intend not to spend one more minute on discussing the cluster and its subpages, so if there are any responses to my opinion, please excuse me for not continuing to respond.
Also for the record, my above comments were made on my talk page where Hayford asked me what I thought, and it was Hayford who copied my Talk page comment and placed it here on this page in Talk:Roast turkey. I am not complaining about his having done so, I just want to set the record straight. Best regards, Milton Beychok 23:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


Mary's been kicked out and Bruce has left. Could there be a connection? Ro Thorpe 01:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Mary's only been blocked for 24 hours. As for Bruce, I'm completely baffled. I'm about to email him to ask him why -- as far as I know, there is absolutely no connection.... Hayford Peirce 01:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

'Expiry time of infinite' - is that Kopspeak for 24 hours? Ro Thorpe 02:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, the form we use doesn't have a 24-hour provision in its boilerplate.... Hayford Peirce 02:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the explanation. Ro Thorpe 02:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Since when did the Constabulary start using shorter blocks? John Stephenson 03:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
My recollection, as a Kop, AND of the CZ rules, is that there were NO short bans -- you were banned forever or not at all. But, of course, the Officers on Duty can pretty much do as they like as long as no Higher Authority overrules them. Hayford Peirce 04:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
A string of unladylike words has just passed my lips Aleta Curry 05:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I was referring to Bruce's leaving. And to the situation that has led to it. Aleta Curry 16:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, pragmatically, isn't that the way it's working right now? There's NO other authority. Hayford Peirce 05:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
That was also the situation when I was (briefly) a constable. I toyed with a proposal to allow 24-hour blocks that would have to be upgraded to infinite by another constable except in case of obvious vandalism or inappropriate material, but the feeling from others was that it had to be all-or-nothing - a slap on the wrist was out. John Stephenson 09:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Please bring this up to the new Management Council, too, whether you agree or not, it needs to be discussed and decided. D. Matt Innis 15:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Always looking to the wisdom of Monty Python, perhaps not wrist-slapping, but fish-slapping. Consider obtaining an animation of a fish, or wielder of fish, on the offensive. As long as one is signed in while blocked, the screen converts to a fish on collision course. As an alterative, there is a US deodorant called BAN. I wonder if the manufacturer would give permission to use a commercial? Howard C. Berkowitz 15:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
You mean the lack of flexibility in the present "rules"? And the possibility of making explicit various degrees of blocking and banning? If so, sure. Hayford Peirce 16:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Hayford, that is what I mean. D. Matt Innis 18:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Righto. I useta wonder about it myself, but knew that it had been handed down by the Founding Fathers, to be a clear contrast from WP and its incessant 24-hour bannings.... Hayford Peirce 18:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The actual current rule here is to block indefinitely and the user can appeal, which I think is good, but the appeal process is broken. D. Matt Innis 18:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, to *my* knowledge, the only people who were banned and then appealed were Martin Cohen and the Muslim who did the Mohammed article. That kid in Arizona *said* he was going to appeal but never did, I think.... Hayford Peirce 18:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, not many have the patience to wait three months for the paperwork to go through :) D. Matt Innis 18:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a properly designed system, to me! Hayford Peirce 19:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Shoot them first and they won't complain about delay. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


Hurry up, let's rewrite it while I'm not a constable! D. Matt Innis 00:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

How about I zap it with a Death Ray? Or we get Uri Geller to come in and bend it like a spoon? Seriously, though, it isn't a *bad* article.... Hayford Peirce 01:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Confused about Howard

You write on the EC wiki "It has become increasing clear that the Editorial Council is unable to function as long as Howard C. Berkowitz is a member of it." I am not sure where I can respond to that, so am asking here. Please point me to the right place for discussion.

First, I'd like some details. If, as you seem to be saying, Howard is being disruptive or counter-productive, I'd like to know how and why. The statement above seems far too vague to act on, Moreover, even if it is true, it is not immediately clear that the problem is Howard. Without more info, it is impossible to tell if he is acting the troublemaker or is the lone voice of sanity in a disfunctional council. My own guess would be that neither explanation is really adequate, but I shouldn't have to guess about something this important.

Second, if the claim is accurate, then that might be grounds for removing him from the Council if we have a procedure for that. Impeachment, perhaps? However, it clearly is not grounds for removing his editor status. I see no relation between the two, unless removing editor status is being used as an indirect way to get him off the council. If it is, I strongly object. Sandy Harris 03:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, to reply to all of your well-founded questions would take me a million words. I have already received hundreds of emails today and sent out fifty or more. I simply cannot answer individual questions such as you pose. All I can suggest, unless you find another EC member with more time to spare than I, is that you follow the process at Sorry that I can't be more helpful. I will also making some comments in the EC Forum at Hayford Peirce 03:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I am tracking the process at both places you mention. However, what I am asking is where can I get more detail and where can I comment.
You write: "I have no doubt that many of you will find means of making your feelings known in this matter." I cannot "make my feelings known" because I do not yet have enough information to have a clear position on the matter, and I suspect that going off half-cocked based on the info I do have will not be helpful. As for "finding means", I can think of two obvious possibilities: start a thread in the open forums, where all citizens can post, or wander over to RationalWiki and start a discussion there. Is one of those likely to be helpful? If not, what would you suggest? Sandy Harris 05:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what is obvious from my limited time at Citizendium is that if you took the people who are doing the complaining in this case and banned them completely from the site you would have a much better functioning Citizendium than at present. Some council members have really warmed to the underhand tactics of politics, the secret ballots and mailing lists, and have stretched the boundaries of civility on the forums. Yes the EC is a joke, but I think you should all be looking inward for the cause rather than ganging up on Howard. David Finn 07:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hayford, we elected you to the council to do your job. We also elected Howard. We didn't elect you, Hayford, to undo our other election results simply because you don't like them.

If you find yourself incapable of working with the EC as it stands, you should stand down. If you can't find a way of making the EC work then I am sorry to say that we voted wrongly, but we didn't elect you to make your own EC. We elected its members and if you cannot work with them then please consider tending your resignation rather than disrupting the site any further. David Finn 08:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I share Sandy's and David's positions. Boris Tsirelson 09:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
As an interested onlooker I share Sandy's, David's, and Boris's positions.--Paul Wormer 09:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
If I may step in here. This is a difficult situation. Let me stress, there must be no personal attacks, derogatory comments, disrespectful comments about any citizen anywhere on Citizendium. There's a danger here that you are inviting Hayford to make such comments - he must not do so. Issues about behaviour in breach of CZ rules are being considered, properly, coolly by the Constabulary. Issues about the functioning of the EC are being considered by the Managing Editor, again, properly and coolly. The relevant rules and regulations are also being considered by the Management Council; it's clear we have some structural weaknesses, and its clear there are several intertwined issues, of fairness, responsibility, of interpretation of rules, and weaknesses in rules that make them ineffective. But people are working with good intentions, mistakes are not made through malice but through frustration. The general issues can and should be discussed openly. The personal issues must not be. The place for discussing the general issues is the forums. Personal issues are for the Constabulary in confidence. The issues for the EC need to be expressed in non-personal terms, and they are issues of how to conduct business efficiently, how to come to swift decisions when there is no universal agreement, and when and how to guillotine discussions.Gareth Leng 09:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how 1 person could make functioning impossible. The rules of procedure seem quite clear. If 2 members make a proposal, there will be a vote within a few days. If 4 vote for it it's passed. How could 1 member prevent that? Am I missing something? Peter Jackson 10:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Add my name to what Peter just wrote. —Anthony.Sebastian 04:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


If Johan is still having trouble creating an account on the EC wiki, you can a Sysop there (eg Peter) to go to and create one for him. --Chris Key 20:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Peter is away for some time, Chris. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 20:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. Well, that is the problem with only having one person with particular powers. --Chris Key 20:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
He is on the West Coast, I think, and said that he will be back this evening. So I'm assuming that he'll be looking at his email at 20:00 West Coast time, which is about 3 or 4 in the morning for you guys. When you wake up tomorrow, hopefully Johan will be in. Hayford Peirce 20:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


No space visible here. Suggest you carry on... Ro Thorpe 18:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's almost certainly the (invisible) bottom of the TOC box that, on my particular browser, is intruding downwards enough to make that particular line think (memory of matter, hehe) there should be white space there to accommodate the box. I'll try looking at it in another browser and report what I find. Hayford Peirce 18:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's fine when I look at it with Internet Explorer instead of Chrome, and with the default Skin, not whatever it is that I'm using. First time this has happened to me, however.... Hayford Peirce 18:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at Sandy Harris user page for how it was conformed to PR-2010-024 when I granted him Editorship

Hayford, I sure would like your comments (if any) about the user page of Sandy Harris as it was transformed to comply with PR-2010-024 when I granted him an Editorship in the Computers workgroup.

You might also look at his Talk page to see my accompanying comments. Milton Beychok 23:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine to me, Milt, and more or less what I think *most* User pages for Editors should look like, at least in their essentials. I don't think that there is ever going to be any way to standardize them. As long as the info is there, that's what counts. So that two years from now if Sandy makes a ruling in some dispute between two Authors about a computer article and one of them says, "Well, what the hell does *he* know about it?!" there's a good starting point for the answer. Thanks for your help in this matter and your enthusiastic approval of our new proposal! Hayford Peirce 00:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem

Hayford, please look at Monty Hall problem and give me an opinion as to whether the graphic I inserted helps you to understand the solution. I have a feeling that most people will have trouble grasping it without such a probability graphic, only reading a mathematicians explaination. David E. Volk 21:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right to insert. I've looked at this problem off and on for 20 years now and never really grasped it. So the graphic can only help. Speaking, of course, as a guy who took four years to finish my required three years of prep school math. Hayford Peirce 21:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Please consider re-writing this sentence

Hayford, please review the two photos and additional text I added to the "Air pollution" section of Owens Lake to update it so as to include the current conditions at the formerly dry bed of the lake. In view of that updating, perhaps this sentence in the lede needs to be re-written. If so, then would you please do the re-write?:

"Now, however, Owens Lake is mostly a dry lake bed with small patches of water."

-- Milton Beychok 00:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, and congratulations

Hello Hayford. I notice that you are now a member of the Editorial Council, and Secretary even. Congratulations on being appointed to this role. I sometimes disappear for a long while, but I'm still very much involved here at CZ and love being able to contribute whatever I can. Thank you for all the help you gave me when I very first started here, and you were a constable. Take care! --Eric Clevinger 06:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Have fun with Stan!

It looks like both you and Derek are working on the Stan Freberg article so go for it! Nice to see wiki collaboration in action. Leaving the same message for Derek too. BTW Freberg is one of my fav comedians and his advertising material was used as a case study for my copy writing class in college. Mary Ash 00:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The ABCs of articles

Ok, I confess I have somewhat cheated by including an article that I wrote shortly before the project began. Hey, is not the point to be promoting new articles and contributions to the project? Eric Clevinger 04:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead

Ironically we were both working on this article at the same time. I am doing a re-structuring which I will explain on the talk page. Some of your recent edits may be part of content that will be moved to a different article. Thank you for helping to copyedit! Eric Clevinger 02:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your edit, then was trying to bring it up to date. I think that we only use boldface for the initial mention of the name. Then, I think, we should use italics for any future mentions of specific games, just the way we do for book titles. And we don't use boldface at all, anywhere, except for that initial mention.... Hayford Peirce 02:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I will keep this in mind when working on future articles. Thanks again. Eric Clevinger 02:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Say hello to new editor in the Classics, Literature and Philosophy workgroups

Hi, Hayford:

We have a new editor, Maria Cuervo, in the Classics, Literature and Philosophy workgroups. Please post a welcome on her Talk page. Thanks, - Milton Beychok 04:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Hayford, I'm glad to meet you all and to be here. I'm reading through the literary and philosophical core priorities and will do what I can to dent it + learn how to use the site. I used to work as a programmer years ago so I imagine I'll figure it out! As for literature, I really love it all so don't be surprised at what I might write about. Philip K. Dick is high on my list. Remember E.E. "Doc" Smith? And I like Latin American literature of the "Marvelous Real." Phantasmagoria they call it.

Have fun! --Maria Cuervo 06:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

A comment here was removed as it appeared to be a taunt or disturbance. Please see Management Council decisions.

Article-approval instructions

Let me ask a question about the one thing that did sort of confuse me during the approval process while following your otherwise extremely clear and manageable instructions. At some point, the metadata's "A Editor" fields (not to be confused with the "ToA Editor" fields) have to be filled in, even as the "ToA Editor" fields are being blanked out, but the instructions say nothing about that. I had gotten to the end of the instructions and panicked when I saw that the main article didn't have the expected banner saying "DUDE! THIS IS AN APPROVED ARTICLE, DUDE!" Upon investigating the metadata, I found that it is not permitted to change the status to "0" ("approved") without also filling in the "A Editor" field. Step #2 of the instructions, after blanking out most of the "ToA ___" fields but just before the *first* "SAVE", should there be an instruction to fill in the names of the "A Editors" before saving? Or did I do something else wrong that prevented this field from being filled in automatically? Thanks. Bruce M. Tindall 20:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, I can't remember *any* of this stuff, but I just looked at the instructions. Is *this* what you're talking about? If so, I used to get a little confused on this myself. If this isn't it, let me know.

2.) Next do the Metadata: Go to the article's Metadata page (always update the metadata first or changes won't show for the categories). Change the status to "0". Type the names of the approving editors from the TofA section into the Approved section of the template just below. Do not put in User: or the brackets or the pipe | line. (In any case, the User, brackets, and pipe | line should NOT be in the TofA section in the first place! If they are, please delete them before going on to the next step so that only the names of the editors are showing.) Hayford Peirce 21:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps looking at the page histories and diffs of one (or more) approved articles helps? --Peter Schmitt 21:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding a Google search box specifically for searching the entire CZ system.

Hayford, about 2-3 years ago, I added a Google search box which is located just below the CZ search box. The Google search box specifically searches only the CZ system. It does a better job than the CZ search box and it finds CZ articles or Help articles whether or not you use the CZ or Help prefixes.

The instructions on how to install it are available as the last item (item 24) in my User:Milton Beychok/Storage box. You may want to consider installing it. - Milton Beychok 14:25, 13 May 2011 (CDT)

You know, Milt, I *knew* that you had done something like that but never got around to studying it -- but now I *will*! Many thanks! Hayford Peirce 14:38, 13 May 2011 (CDT)

Management Council

Hayford, I'd like to nominate you for Management Council. Let's discuss it off site. Drop me a line and let me know what you think.Thomas Simmons 16:49, 13 May 2011 (CDT)

Forum Profile Photo

Hi Hayford, I have tried a number of things but can not get my photo on the forum profile. Do you remember how you did it?

Hey there

Long time no "see." How are things going around here? Stephen Ewen 07:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back!, Stephen. We really need your expertise about images. Please contact new user Pablo Martín Zampini who has a number of problems/questions about some photos he wants to upload. Regards, Milton Beychok 07:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Stephen, glad to see you back! You've been sorely missed! Really. Would you take a look at the photo at: -- I think that I'm on pretty sure ground here, at least with Aussie photos taken before 1 Jan. 1955. I guess that I should add under Sources that it comes from the archives of the Victoria Library in so-and-so city. I put tons of these old Aussie photos into WP articles years ago, and most of them are still there, so I guess that WP thinks they're OK. They're stored in WP Commons, but I am uploading my own again and rewriting the info.... Hayford Peirce 15:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Changes to page Set theory

Matt Innis has made the comment that he would prefer the original authors of the article Set theory to decide among themselves whether they approve of the changes suggested in this comparison of the original and its proposed changes. You have contributed to this article, so I'm assuming you have an opinion on the topic. What is your recommendation? John R. Brews 14:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You've gotta remember that my edit to this article consisted of changing two dashes to a single emdash. That is actually the sort of copyedit that Matt has said could be done by a Constable upon the request of anyone at all. Ie, just tidying up. That said, I really don't know if I have an opinion one way or another about the real question. You've got to remember that I joined the project four years ago, when there were a lot more active Editors and a number of articles were being Approved, frequently with three Editors engaged in the process. Because there were no active Editors in any of the fields in which I was primarily creating articles (tennis, cooking, genre fiction), I really paid no attention to the process. Then, when I became a Constable and, for a year or so, was the guy doing the actual mechanics of the Approvals, I basically told everyone else involved: "Don't ask me about any of this stuff, I'm just a dumb Kop -- when you have decided precisely which version you want me to Approve, then you tell me, and I'll do it. In some cases I wouldn't Approve an article until I was absolutely clear about which version should be Approved, and in some cases I had to ask Matt to help me out in this matter. Which, I believe, led to Joe Quick being appointed Approvals Manager -- when he told me to go ahead, I would. Otherwise, I wouldn't. So I'm basically saying that I am strongly grounded in the old philosophy and the old way of doing things. But I'm not saying that this way is correct. I have been following the discussion between you and Peter, and I can see the merits in each side of the question. As to this particular article -- whether it should or should not be Re-Approved -- I simply am not competent to make a judgment. Matt Innis is, I think, competent to judge. And maybe, if the new Editorial Council proposal is passed, then we'll have a new way of doing this.... Sorry that I can't be more explicit in answering your question! Hayford Peirce 16:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
John, I just saw this (I've already responded on my talk page), but I'd like to make one thing clear (just for clerical purposes): I said that you will need to work with the original "Editors" to make content edits - or get a new editor - to reapprove. The reason is that the "Editor" is the one that puts their reputation on the line when they approve an article. You and I are just authors on those pages. So, if we want them change a version with that has their name on it, then we need to make sure they agree that the information is accurately presented. Otherwise we will be attributing something to them that they did not necessarily endorse. I hope that helps you understand. D. Matt Innis 16:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


Just a heads up, Richard applied as an author and editor, but I was only able to create an author account. I don't know where the EPA program is at the moment, but I don't want to lose track of the people that apply... and your user page seems the best place to drop them :) D. Matt Innis 12:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me! I'll have to shake up the EC about this one -- I *think* Joe Quick said he would take over, but we haven't done anything official about it yet. Please tell Richard to be patient for a few more days. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 15:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Matt, take a look at -- I'll try to get this done as quickly as possible! Hayford Peirce 18:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Editorial assistance?

Hayford: The article Classical mechanics had a terrific floor-plan, but was written by a number of authors not native English speakers. I've added to this article and tried to fix the oddities of English, but I find every time I look at it I see something I didn't notice before. At this point I despair of ever seeing this thing with fresh eyes, and I hope you might read it over and fix it so it reads reasonably.

What say you? John R. Brews 19:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see if I spot anything. Hayford Peirce 20:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


Did I do that properly? -Joe Quick 16:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not up to speed on this removal business. I see that Peter has tweaked your template slightly. Peter is the expert in this area, so I think that any questions about removals ought to go to him initially. Hayford Peirce 17:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Election nomination

Hayford, please try again. Russell D. Jones 19:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that candidates are supposed to wait until someone of the election committee puts the names in the appropriate section, using the appropriate format. --Peter Schmitt 22:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is what Anton just told me. BUT saying that he had forgotten to do the links anyhow. He will fix it tomorrow. Hayford Peirce 23:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Links all fixed now. Anton Sweeney 09:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Yes, I'm back and promise to be as quiet as a mouse. Thanks so much for the warm welcome. Mary Ash 02:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


...for all the hard work you did for us during your tenure as Secretary. We never would have gotten this thing off the ground without your commitment and focus. Can't wait to see you around the wiki again!! D. Matt Innis 00:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


Hi Hayford: As one with some gift for exposition and also considerable experience here on CZ, I wonder if you have thoughts about contributing to this "interview" event? John R. Brews 17:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


He looks like YOU! Hehe. D. Matt Innis 20:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Wish did look like him, hehe. I brooded about that image for years, then discovered the other day that there is a public domain image of Cary Grant taken back in the 1930s that is the mirror image of this painting. Not 100% the same, but the artist obviously just copied the Grant photo and changed it very slightly. And Raymond Chandler wrote somewhere that either he, or Marlowe himself, felt that Philip Marlowe looked like Cary. A P.I. with pretensions, I'd say.... Hayford Peirce 20:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Heck yeah, I remember that Cary Grant picture. Hey, is that a sneaky way to get me to say you look like Cary Grant?! D. Matt Innis 21:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Heck, I wouldn't mind if you said I looked like Gary Cooper! Hayford Peirce 23:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Your monthly reporting of our financial status is excellent!!

Hayford, I just want to say that you are doing an excellent job as our new Treasurer. I particularly commend you for your prompt monthly reports. As a past Treasurer, I know how much work that entails. Regards, Milton Beychok 06:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Milt! But, like most things, once the basic infrastructure is in place, then doing the routine stuff becomes pretty easy. I sure wouldn't want to have to try to set up another PayPal account, however! Hayford Peirce 16:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Lemma help

You are most welcome! Mary Ash 21:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Onion the dog

Hi! Hayford, I don't pop in here much any more but I'd be happy to edit the Onion the Dog article. I promise the royal reporter objective treatment. To be fair, I do believe ANY dog that takes the life of a human should be euthanized. Let me know if you want me to work on this article. I will move the article into my sandbox for editing. Thanks! Mary Ash 22:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It is strange that this struggle can take place in a country that still has and executes the death penalty ... --Peter Schmitt 01:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Hayford Peirce 01:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
There are so many facets to this story that it is not just about the dog. Some people view dogs as having similar rights as humans and that should not be the case. Dogs are an animal, they deserve our protection and care as we are required to care for all of God's animals; but on the other hand they do not have the same rights as humans. Dogs are considered property in the US so the transfer of ownership is a key to this article. Who really owns the dog? Henderson officials claim the dog ownership was signed over to the city. The owner seems to have recanted and wants the dog back. Also, at issue is the ability for local officials to enforce their laws which boils down to local control. Finally, the euthanizing of an animal is a serious decision, one not taken lightly, but in the case where a human is killed it is best for the gene pool to have the dog euthanized. Sadly, some animal rights groups have wanted to place human feelings and rights on our pets making what would have considered a normal process a few years ago now difficult. BTW I cry over every pet I've had euthanized as it is an ending to a long-term commitment. I'm off my soap box for now. Thanks Hayford too for your fine edits. Much appreciate your professional input. Mary Ash 23:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

My tiresome and offensive remarks

Hayford: You write:

"John, after all of your comments, I am beginning to find them both tiresome and borderline offensive"

We do have different evaluations of what is worthy of inclusion in CZ, but it hardly seems like taking my remarks as "offensive" is a good approach to differences. We just don't agree, and so we don't agree. I can see that you like chocolate and I like vanilla. It's not the end of the world.

I'll present my opinions, as do you, and while such an exchange may seem "tiresome", that may apply equally to us both, eh what? John R. Brews 02:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Moving The Rules Of Physics to User:Robert Adams/The rules of physics

A recently joined member, Robert Adams, has contributed an article The Rules Of Physics that has a few problems: (i) it is not in the correct format for CZ, (ii) it is incomplete, (iii) it contains material that at best can be considered controversial and (iv) it contains no supporting references. It has been suggested on its Talk page that it be moved to Robert's user space. The problems with this article also have been presented on Robert Adams user page. The article was posted 7/20/2013 and Robert has so far made no further appearance on CZ.

I don't know what is a reasonable grace period for waiting for Robert to take an initiative here, but I feel that there is no doubt whatsoever that this material has to be moved, whether by Robert or by other means. In its present form it has no place on CZ.

Being rather uninformed about procedure in such matters, I wonder if you could initiate some action to move this article to Robert's user space, perhaps User:Robert Adams/The rules of physics? John R. Brews 12:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I've moved it to his Talk page and asked Matt Innis to delete the remaining shards of the article. Hayford Peirce 17:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for your interest in the article, Skepticism. I am familiar with using a sandbox. The term "Draft" is intended to make it clear that the article is only developing. I am new to Citizendium, but as I understand it, there are degrees of article 'completeness,' but that is not evident to people not familiar with the system. Skepticism is a ticklish concept and it is important that people not take the article as a complete statement. I think the "Draft" will do no harm.

The objective on an online encyclopedia like this is to have community development of articles. What I wrote in the intro was something to get things going and is a little more than an opinion, but your point is well-taken. The problem I have is having people simply delete content because they don't like it, rather than offering an alternative. I will try to find a few references for your consideration. Thomas Butler 01:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I think you will create enormous confusion by using the word "draft" as you did, since CZ has never done things that way AND a couple of other people (now departed) have come into CZ and essentially tried to begin (and write) articles that they did not want anyone else to touch while they were writing them. They basically, for a long time, simply refused to recognize the role of "sandboxes", saying, "Well, at this other wiki, I did it this and no one complained." It took many thousands of words, some of them becoming increasingly angry, before these people desisted. But even then, they still believed that they ought to have been allowed to do it. The feeling of the majority of people at CZ is that articles are meant to be worked on by whoever is in the community. If an Author starts an article and doesn't want other people to work on it, then he can write it on his Talk page, or in a Sandbox, or even off-line. If he starts an article in the usual way, everyone else at CZ KNOWS that it's only a START. You don't have to call it a Draft or anything else. It IS a draft -- until it's absolutely finished and locked in place, which we haven't done in a long time anyway.
So, don't be discouraged by not being able to use the word Draft. Write your articles, and other people will edit them as they see fit. I myself must have started a hundred or more articles. Most of them I have finished, one way or another, but some of them, perhaps the novels of Richard Condon and Charles McCarry come to mind, were set out with ambitious frameworks in place and then had parts that were never filled in. Someday I hope to get around to finishing them. Or I hope that someone else will do it. In the meantime, they're better, in their unfinished state, than not existing at all....
And, to be honest, we are, basically, a pretty "skeptical" group. Many of us are, I suppose, Martin Gardiner-type "debunkers". To me, that's a compliment; to others, not so much. So whatever you write about the subject will probably be scrutinized pretty carefully, in, I trust, an amicable manner. But all the best, and have at it! Hayford Peirce 23:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Perhaps what I am looking for is how to add that field in the Martin Gardine article that is right under the title. It makes the status of the article clear. Do you know how that came along? Did I need to use a template?
I maintain a pretty large website and am sensitive to the problem of being the only author of material. The Collective is a good example of my trying to get others to participate. "Build it and they will come ... someday." :-)
Yes, I am seeking participation from other editors. I know that I have a rather odd way of expressing ideas that is not as others seem to want for the encyclopedia. That is fine, so I am doing things that might encourage others in my field to become involved.
Thanks! Thomas Butler 01:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2014 election

You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2014 election. Please visit this page to accept or decline the position. No action will also be treated as declining. If you accept, you may choose to write a statement - see the election page for further details. Alternatively, contact me via my Talk page or privately via e-mail. Regards, John Stephenson 14:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2015 election

You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2015 election. Please visit this page to accept or decline the position. No action will also be treated as declining. If you accept, you may choose to write an election statement - see the election page for further details. Alternatively, contact me via my Talk page or privately via e-mail. Apologies for this late notification. Please note that acceptance will require you to resign from the Election Committee. Regards, John Stephenson (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2016 election

You've been nominated as a candidate for the Citizendium Council in the June 2016 election. Please visit this page to accept or decline. No action will also be treated as declining. If you accept, you may choose to write an election statement - see the election page for further details. Alternatively, contact me via my Talk page or privately via e-mail. Regards, John Stephenson (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


These plot summaries are all very well, but they don't explain the appeal (if any). Give us an opinion or a taste. I think I probably read most of the Jeeves books long ago, and all I remember now are a few verbs (e.g. "shimmered" as a mode of progression) and the description of the effects of a hangover cure. In other words, the language. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

A good point, of course, but I've been unnerved by the WP experience of "original research". I WILL however, get around to bringing in OTHER opinions, such as Evelyn Waugh's -- it will be easy to do. But I THINK I want to wait until I've finished with the novels -- there's just one more to go. Then I'll start adorning them -- and I do wonder if anyone in the States reads him anymore at all. In UK, of course, you still have the BBC doing his stuff over and over. And why not, of course? Hayford Peirce (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Goodbye and good luck

Hello, Hayford.

Sorry, but I see no future for this site and I've completed my basic purpose here. My friends and I believe we have a way forward now to create our own domain of cricket history, so CZ has been useful. I've enjoyed our chats and I'd like to wish you all the very best for the future. Keep on enjoying the tennis. Good luck. John Leach (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

longest Talk page ever?

Hayford - this page is HUGE! It took me a half hour to scroll to the bottom of it so I could edit it. Would you consider archiving some of the older stuff? If you need help, John or I could do it for you. I'm planning to ask you lots of questions here in the future. :-) Pat Palmer (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, I never thought of that before! Because, I guess, no one has used it for many years now. I'll see if I can archive it myself. If I can't, I'll ask for help! Hayford Peirce (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Please archive this for me!

Hi, this archiving is beyond me at the moment -- once I see how it's done, it probably won't be too hard to do in the future. Please archive EVERYTHING ABOVE the Haggard photo and our discussion of the last day or so. Thanks! Hayford Peirce (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)