User talk:Larry Sanger/Archive 8

From Citizendium
Jump to: navigation, search

rock bands

Mr. Sanger, Thank you for the revision and comment on talk page. I think it is a very good idea. Just a question, is the article rock and roll the same thing as rock music? If yes, then the article possibly should be moved. Thanks! --Yi

Your question is an excellent one. I don't know the answer, and I think you should research the question and report the results on "rock music." You might want to consult a music scholar. --Larry Sanger 11:11, 7 October 2007 (CDT)

I think rock and roll is best defined as the earliest form of rock music. Robert Thorpe 11:14, 13 October 2007 (CDT)

Sysop group messages

Hmm, should I revert MediaWiki:Group-sysop‎, MediaWiki:Group-sysop‎-member back to "Sysop" (these determine what shows at Special:Listusers if "Administrator" makes it seem to much like Wikipedia? Is there some better word to use that "Sysop", which at best, people will think means "Systems operator". "Moderator" seem to loaded as well, as if this is a forum. Aaron Schulz 13:04, 7 October 2007 (CDT)

I'm off for a bit--I don't quite understand what you're asking, I'd have to look intot it. Later! --Larry Sanger 13:24, 7 October 2007 (CDT)
I reset them back for now. Aaron Schulz 17:06, 7 October 2007 (CDT)


Hi Larry, I noticed that CZ Editorial Council is currently considering Resolution 0006a and 0006b. I was curious about how the voting system works, is a quorum required before a resolution is passed? It seems that only a small number of the Council members have cast their votes. Thanks. Hendra I. Nurdin 05:08, 9 October 2007 (CDT)

See the link to the rules from CZ:Editorial Council. We require a 40% quorum, which we haven't got yet. --Larry Sanger 07:41, 9 October 2007 (CDT)

Topic Informant Group

Hello, sir. Robert W. King requested I ask you about something. Here is his original message, from the Cary Grant talk page:

"If I were famous and an author here I wouldn't be allowed to write an article about myself, but I can be a topic informant should anyone choose to write about me. See Larry Sanger for reference. I don't know if this pertains to only self-referential articles. Because you're publishing books on the topics that you're also contributing articles to, I would think that you might quality to be one, but I'm not 100% positive."

That's the message. However, to clarify: the first three books that will be published in my name will be novels (and they're still floating through the vast innards of the mega publishers), so for the next couple of years at least there should be no conflict. But I have a vast Howard Hughes biography; and I'm using stuff cut out of its appendix (all of which will have to go anyway, for the book to be commercial, but anyway); this is where my "U.S. commercial aviation history to 1966" and "Milestones in early flight (1919 - 1938)‎" and "Cary Grant" articles come from. The Hughes book won't be out for another five years at least I guess (who has time to cut a 1,000 pages out of a book?) so it's not like I'm here to advertise it, haha. I'm not exactly sure what this topic informant group is all about. (At the moment I am jazzed up about entering content, and am not spending enough time learning all of the technical details). So I'm sending this message in a kind of mystified way.Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 20:19, 9 October 2007 (CDT)

I answered on the Talk:Cary Grant. Matt Innis (Talk) 20:37, 9 October 2007 (CDT)

Just wanted to say welcome, again, Jeffrey--thanks for diving right in! --Larry Sanger 21:36, 9 October 2007 (CDT)

Earth Sciences top 33

Ciao Larry,

could you take a look here and give us feedback? Thanks in advance --Nereo Preto 12:53, 12 October 2007 (CDT)

Core articles and google (and other) searches

Larry - you've highlighted the top 10 google searches which send people to Citizendium; is it possible to publish the entire list? Also, is it possible to extract the statistics for which internal searches are most common? Both would help enormously with the Core Articles initiative. Anthony Argyriou 15:52, 12 October 2007 (CDT)

(My apologies for having asked this a number of places and in a number of forms. Anthony Argyriou 16:53, 12 October 2007 (CDT))

Top search queries]]

Top search query clicks

--Larry Sanger 22:33, 12 October 2007 (CDT)


Why are there multiple sections for the letters B, F, G, H, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, W? Supten 22:04, 12 October 2007 (CDT)

Don't know--one of our tech guys was working on this, I'll let him know. --Larry Sanger 22:26, 12 October 2007 (CDT)

Quality over openness

When I said this I wasn't criticizing CZ, I actually prefer it that way. I was just joking about the Wikipedia vs CZ rivalry with star wars gags ;). Aaron Schulz 22:41, 15 October 2007 (CDT)

Well, even if it wasn't meant as a criticism, the thought itself bothers me. Openness is the engine that makes wikis and other such projects run. If we aren't open, we aren't going anywhere. --Larry Sanger 08:14, 16 October 2007 (CDT)
Putting quality at a higher level of importance than "anyone can edit" is not the same as removing all openness. It just means that we try to be as open as possible, as long as it doesn't hurt quality. Aaron Schulz 13:47, 16 October 2007 (CDT)


I take it you are aware of this initiative? Although it doesn't quite seem to be living up to its potential --Russ McGinn 12:53, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

If the information on that star has been verfied then it is probably worth it being in veropedia. The biggest problem in wikipedia is subtle vandalism by users that make a series of edits changing important numbers in an article. First, if these vandals are caught it is common to revert some but not all of the edits (usually the latest one only). From that point on an error is maintianed in the article, possibly for years. Second, such vandalism is often over looked altogether if the vandal is intelligent enough to leave a reasonable edit summary. So, any data high article is a nightmare to maintain in an 'anyone can edit' environment. For this reason it makes sense to verify and lock down data high articles as soon as possible. Chris Day (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2007 (CDT)
Some random thoughts on forum [1]. Aleksander Stos 14:47, 16 October 2007 (CDT)
Can we import stuff from Veropedia? Yi Zhe Wu 17:19, 16 October 2007 (CDT)
I'd prefer not to. Veropedia is simply re-presenting Wikipedia articles. They deny they're a mirror of WP, but that is in effect what they are. For clarity, we should just import from Wikipedia. --Larry Sanger 18:24, 16 October 2007 (CDT)
VPedia is not changing the improted articles, just importing them. Stephen Ewen 13:43, 23 October 2007 (CDT)


4-tildes signature stopped to offer a link? Is this a deliberate setup or is this a side-effect of removing "nickname" from preferences? Aleksander Stos 14:52, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

Is that really the case? Let me test...right now: Larry Sanger 18:23, 16 October 2007 (CDT) Seems to work OK to me. --Larry Sanger 18:23, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

Mine stopped offering a link too. I had to go into my preferences and uncheck the "raw signature" option. I really miss my (talk) page link. Joe Quick 22:51, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. Aleksander Stos 00:47, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

Yep, bummer, but doing as Joe said fixed it for me, too. Stephen Ewen 01:22, 17 October 2007 (CDT)


Do you mean, "subpaginate"? --Robert W King 19:28, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

Whatever. We're making up words. --Larry Sanger 19:40, 16 October 2007 (CDT)


Got all the instances that Google was able to tell me about. There are probably others that are protected from search engine spidering, but those are probably less important. I also skipped over older talk page comments - I don't see any reason to update those. --Joe Quick 22:47, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

Cool. Thanks, Joe--I'll be e-mailing you soon. --Larry Sanger 09:24, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

Englishman in Portugal

Hello again, Larry, that was me - Robert Thorpe 16:47, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

Thanks--talk to you tomorrow. --Larry Sanger 21:36, 17 October 2007 (CDT)


Just in case you haven't seen it yet: I've posted a suggestion in response of your comment at Template talk:Subpages#Print icon. Happy editing! --Eddie Ortiz Nieves 17:59, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

Thanks (and welcome!). --Larry Sanger 21:36, 17 October 2007 (CDT)


The account creation log is getting hotter! Did you invite people? Aaron Schulz 19:10, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

Yep. See CZ:Recruitment. I told you that when we started recruiting, things would heat up, didn't I? :-) --Larry Sanger 21:36, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

And, speaking of recruiting, I sent out an e mail to the Connecticut Counseling Association listserve this morning asking for input on the Psych pages. :) --Michael J. Formica 19:03, 8 November 2007 (CST)


Print media have sidebars: Text boxes that appear with the main article and contain important explanatory material, but that are set off graphically and positionally. They are common, and very useful. For their purpose, they are better than references/links to stuff on other pages.

Citizendium could have the same. Think of being able to insert and position some text, just as we do with images. Louis F. Sander 08:21, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

Have you seen From Dawn to Decadence? Is that sort of thing you're talking about?

It'll be very difficult to persuade people to change their habits--and it would also be difficult to code up--but I wouldn't dismiss the idea out of hand. Putting notes at the bottom of the page is probably a hold-over from the old days of expensive publishing layout. We have no such problem anymore. --Larry Sanger 11:30, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

While Wikipedia overuses "infoboxes", this sounds similar, and it may be useful, if not carried too far. Certain subjects would benefit from a uniform visual method of presenting certain basic facts about the subject. It's quite easy to create sidebars by writing long captions for images, but that has limitations, both technically, and as a matter of policy - we don't want to encourage people to write five-paragraph captions when either a sidebar or new subsection would be more appropriate.
Larry - you mentioned notes at the bottom. Perhaps someone couldcode up an extension that puts the text of a ref tag into a "tooltip" when the note is hovered over? We are currently using the <ref> tag for references and for notes, but it would be useful for both. It might also be annoying, so definitely this should be tested and discussed before it's done. Anthony Argyriou 12:34, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

Clearly, we need to get some clear proposals on the table and then we need to discuss them. The place to do so is not on my page (though I appreciate the heads up!), but instead --Larry Sanger 13:08, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

Mark Mirabello

Dr Sanger, I posted this elsewhere:

I have been studying the Odin Brotherhood since 1982. Feel free to ask people here--at the Odin Brotherhood Discussion Group about the organization. They represent a small number of the members around the world.--Mark Mirabello 15:04, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

I have to confess, I battled Miss van der Linde on wikipedia, and I really have no time to engage her again. Perhaps the dozen or so pagans she knows have not heard of the group, but that does not prove her point. --Mark Mirabello 15:12, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

Dr. Mirabello, thanks for getting in touch with me. The article is going to have to go in "Cold Storage" until we get this sorted out. You may deal with me directly; you needn't battle Kim here if you don't wish to. But I'm afraid I am going to need to see more evidence of the existence of an Odin Brotherhood that exists beyond the pages of your book's five editions and an online community. Actually, I don't even require that. I require evidence that scholars who study neopaganism take the Odin Brotherhood seriously, and that they take seriously the claim that it is not merely your invention. --Larry Sanger 15:28, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

Rock and roll and Rock

I've split the former into two, as discussed above. And I've sent you an email, having read more carefully! - Robert Thorpe 16:58, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

OK, sounds good! --Larry Sanger 20:22, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

A misunderstanding...

Larry, we have a couple of misunderstandings here.

  1. I am sorry. I am newbie here, my ID having being created about 30 hours ago. You might think your point was very simple. But I honestly, sincerely, really don't understand what you are asking me to do.
  2. I didn't say I was going to write political essays on Talk:Extrajudicial detention. I said the opposite, that I wasn't going to clutter up the page with material that wasn't directly connected to its topic.
  3. I planned to write those essage on sub-pages of my user page, precisely so I wouldn't clutter up Talk:Extrajudicial detention with off-topic material.
  4. And those mini-essays I planned to write last night were not going to be "political essays", they were going to be my respectful questions and opinions about design issues. I spent a few hours this morning, looking at the guidelines you recommended I look at, and at the Citizendium fora. And I think my thoughts would be better shared there, with the similar questions and opinions shared by other participants.

I am not going to get grumpy over what is almost certainly a simple misunderstanding, and from my review of your other comments, out of character.

Yours for co-operation. George Swan 18:38, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

George, see CZ:User Pages; please do not put essays about CZ policy on your user page, that is specifically prohibited. Use the forums for that, which is what everyone else does. We aren't Wikipedia--in several ways. For one thing, we don't use our user space as places to make political statements about how the project should be run. User space is for two purposes, namely, biographies and talk with other contributors. There are other, more appropriate venues for policy proposals. The Forums should almost always be your first stop.

As to what I am asking you to do in the article: compose the definition so that POWs are not included in the definition of extrajudicial detention; also, either expand the length of the sections, or remove the section headers altogether; finally, work on making the article into a neutral narrative. This involves, among other things, stating sympathetically not only the views of progressives on your topic, but also the views of U.S. conservatives--to put it into harsh relief. It's an introduction not to the true (progressive) view, but to the dialectic, which includes the true view, as well as evil, pernicious views--unless, of course, no one has it right.  :-)

As to grumpiness, I'd also have you review Professionalism. If you ever have a problem with my treatment of you, if you feel you can't approach me personally e.g. by e-mail, then consult with the Constabulary, and I assure you (indeed, I would insist) that they will approach the matter independently of me and serve as neutral peace brokers.

Yours for following the rules--and cooperation.  :-) --Larry Sanger 20:19, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

A little CZ history

I'm interested, when did you start planning for the creation of CZ? Not just when you realized that such a project was needed, but also when you started the actual process of creating it. I found three pages on WP that were all started in the spring or summer of 2006 and sound really familiar in a lot of ways: Expert editors, Expert retention, Expert rebellion. Of course, those pages all seem to have been more or less rejected by the broader WP community, but that just makes them more intriguing. The edit histories and talk pages for those pages make the whole thing even more interesting, because a number of familiar names crop up. --Joe Quick 16:30, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

That's a long story and it depends on what you consider "planning for the creation of CZ" to be. Something close to the concept of CZ as it was launched was conceived and discussed only about a month before the Sept. 15 announcement. I have a document titled "Preliminary proposal" dated August 24, 2006, but I probably started it before that. It wasn't named until about Sept. 10 or so. I was talking about a fork already in "Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism." I actively worked on plans for a fork, but not CZ, for the Digital Universe as early as Feb. 2005, I think. --Larry Sanger 19:26, 20 October 2007 (CDT)

Hmm. Okay. Well it looks like the launch date was good timing in any case, at least in terms of public opinion. In terms of addressing the problems with Wikipedia, your first thoughts were probably more timely. At least we know that CZ is responding to issues that are/were relevant to people who aren't already involved. Of course, there are lots of other clues about that. --Joe Quick 00:22, 21 October 2007 (CDT)


Yes, Larry, the note you put at come talk to Aleta is spot on. Aleta Curry 23:18, 21 October 2007 (CDT)

OK, Aleta--I will nudge that higher in my priority list, mentally anyway.  :-) --Larry Sanger 10:35, 22 October 2007 (CDT)

Happy Birthday to Us

Larry, I finally got the first draft of that Press Release ready for you to have a look at. It is in your email and on internal PR list. --Ian Johnson 09:56, 22 October 2007 (CDT)

Thanks very much, Ian! --Larry Sanger 10:34, 22 October 2007 (CDT)

Sign up to help with "What's Your Article?" here

Common-latin name stuff

Please see the biology workgroup page for the compromise. The scientific(common) option is selected when there is a clear single common name that should be used over other names, aka, when there is a single authoritative source to be used. Kim van der Linde 13:08, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

Okey-dokey. --Larry Sanger 13:11, 23 October 2007 (CDT)


User:ContribBot needs to added to the bot group. This is done via Special:Userrights. It is set in the same manner as you assign constables, but you would select "bot" instead of "sysop" from the list. This prevents it from breaking recent changes. It can only be set by a bureaucrat. --ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 14:10, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

Done. --Larry Sanger 14:12, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

How do I figure out how to make my contributions fit here?


We had an exchange over on talk:extrajudicial detention a week or so ago.

I need some advice. I wrote about it here, in forum-space. I am hoping you might have time to look at that and direct me to the right person, or the right fora, to learn how I might port and adapt GFDL material I wrote elsewhere so it complies with the standards here.

Cheers! George Swan 15:56, 26 October 2007 (CDT)

Robert > Ro Thorpe

Yes, Larry, I'd be grateful if it could be changed as far as possible. I was misled into unnecessary formality in my application. Only my mother calls me Robert! Robert Thorpe 11:09, 29 October 2007 (CDT)

Your article?

Is this initiative still going on? I didn't see any articles there. Yi Zhe Wu 23:35, 29 October 2007 (CDT)

No. Look at the message at the top of the page. --Larry Sanger 08:06, 30 October 2007 (CDT)

Gideon disambig

There's a response to your comment on Talk:Gideon's Trumpet. -- k. kay 21:19, 4 November 2007 (CST)

CV uploads

People can now attach a CV/resume file when requesting accounts, so you may want to update the interface messages, just to give a heads up. Aaron Schulz 13:07, 5 November 2007 (CST)

Yep, I just noticed that. Thank you, Aaron. --Larry Sanger 13:32, 5 November 2007 (CST)
MediaWiki:requestaccount-text and MediaWiki:requestaccount-ext-text probably need updating specifically. Aaron Schulz 21:22, 8 November 2007 (CST)

MediaWiki:Talkpagetext needs updating.

Currently it says "Please place the checklist at the top of the page" when it should read, "Please place the {{subpages}} template at the top of the page. See Subpage help for guidance" or whatever we use for that context. --Robert W King 21:44, 7 November 2007 (CST)

Fixed. Eventually I want to adjust this to use conditionals by namespace, but this'll work for now. --ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 21:55, 7 November 2007 (CST)
I'd also put the text of "subpages" (between the curlies) as a link to the help page just to be on the safe side. Also one more thing: the edit bar at the top of the editbox shows repeating stuff... --Robert W King 21:57, 7 November 2007 (CST)
Yikes! When did that happen with the edit bar? -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 22:13, 7 November 2007 (CST)
It *might* have been yesterday that I first noticed it, but I definately noticed it earlier this morning. --Robert W King 22:14, 7 November 2007 (CST)
I guess you've alerted "the proper authorities," Zach...? --Larry Sanger 05:35, 8 November 2007 (CST)


Hi Larry, thanks for your edit to Haredi Judaism. I intend to expand that section greatly, however, one remark: without using a category structure, this would be very difficult. I prefer to write articles like a tree, with branches - using the Wikipedia category system (and perhaps more closely sticking to the original intention of that system).
Another comment: I think it would be useful to create a Judaism workgroup. At the moment, it looks like I would be almost the only editor - though I hope that User:Nahum Wengrov‎ will join in. I intend to ask some reliable Orthodox Jewish Wikipedia editors to join in also. Wikipedia has turned into a very rich library of articles on Haredi Judaism, things which cannot be found anywhere else online. However, POV-pushing by editors hiding behind anonymous screen names has completely ruined Wikipedia. I very much oppose anonimity (see my user page) and believe that all Citizendium users should be required to do even more to prove their identity. For example, verify a person's identity by regular mail, forcing that person to give you their real name and address. I think that when people are forced to use their real names and are forced to place their real contact information online, they are much less likely to show disturbing behavior on wikis. Thank you for your attention, --Daniel Breslauer 08:03, 8 November 2007 (CST)


Well, I hope we'll be able to create many new workgroups, but it is frankly on me to set up the mechanism that will do so. I apologize for the delay.

Like you, I'm in favor of breaking topics into parts and having articles on each of the parts. But rather than Wikipedia's category system, we are developing what I think will, eventually, be a superior system of Related Articles pages. --Larry Sanger 08:08, 8 November 2007 (CST)

Thanks. But see, for example: Hasidic Judaism. I want to create something different than Wikipedia's plain list - something that is more alive, that will in a few lines introduce a person to the background and characteristics of that group. I also want to prevent the word 'dynasty' and most definitely the word 'sect' from appearing anywhere. I intend to write articles about all groups, similar to the articles on Wikipedia, but less susceptible to POV-pushing and vandalism. Basically we are starting from scratch here. Both in order to avoid POV issues and for practical reasons I would prefer to 'recruit' another Orthodox Jewish Wikipedia editor.
I want to ask you one simple question regarding copyrights: can I copy 'dynastical' lineages from Wikipedia? For example this. Thanks, --Daniel Breslauer 08:14, 8 November 2007 (CST)

Well, what you see on Hasidic Judaism really belongs in a catalog. Articles are narratives, not lists of subtopics; on that, see CZ:Article Mechanics.

Please do help with recruitment--of course, Orthodox Jewish editors would be most welcome.

Re copying lineages, why not? But that, too, might (or might not) belong on a subpage. --Larry Sanger 08:18, 8 November 2007 (CST)

Thanks, I'm going to spend some more time learning the structure of Citizendium. It's different from Wikipedia and that makes it much more difficult. However, the increased use of subpages is very good. I'm going to quit for today, soon - work continues tomorrow. I see a great potential for Citizendium and intend to contribute as much as I can. Do you realize that being a good Citizendium editor might even be an important thing to list on your curriculum vitae when looking for a job? Just a little thing I just came up with. --Daniel Breslauer 08:33, 8 November 2007 (CST)

Thanks, Daniel, and welcome again! I doubt it's important now--but it very well could become important. --Larry Sanger 08:38, 8 November 2007 (CST)

More questions

Hey, Larry...thanks for your help with these various articles. I am going to add some content to Hatha Yoga Pradipika today, as well as some cross-reference bios on the translators of the modern text.

Also, I am going to do with the Martial arts article what I did with the Yoga article, which is break it down into a series of smaller articles. These guys are trying to write books! :)

I have a question about being an Editor. I put in a request for that status, but have heard nothing back. Is there something I'm missing...are Editors and Authors the same thing? Also, there seems to be some administrative responsibilities that can be assumed as an Editor. I wouldn't mind looking into that.

Finally, I am planning to add "Suggested translation" sections to some of the articles with which I am involved. Is linking to Amazon verbodden here, if that link is to a specific scholarly work?

Blessings...--Michael J. Formica 11:17, 8 November 2007 (CST)

Welcome, Michael. I welcome work on the martial arts article. It probably does include some listification that is best put elsewhere. The article need not be short, but it would be better viewed as a unitary narrative--of which parts of the article are now. What we don't want to do, in any case, is have a short article on an important high-level topic, that consists simply of links to articles about subtopics. I hope that makes sense.
Re editorship, please bear with us...there's a shameful backlog there.
Rather than linking to Amazon, find the ISBN number and just write "ISBN NNNNNNNNNN"--the software automatically creates a link. --Larry Sanger 11:24, 8 November 2007 (CST)

Please see my note about WP at Talk:Italian language - Ro Thorpe 17:12, 8 November 2007 (CST)

Shifting a workgroup assignment

Larry...I beleive that having Yoga under Hobbies is inappropriate. Can we at least get it moved to Sports, if not Religion? --Michael J. Formica 19:01, 8 November 2007 (CST)

I have no objection whatsoever--go ahead. I do vaguely remember some discussion of this, so you might look for that, but I don't remember what the outcome was. --Larry Sanger 19:04, 8 November 2007 (CST)

Excellent. How do I do that? I can't seem to figure it out. --Michael J. Formica 17:54, 9 November 2007 (CST)
Just fill in the appropriate workgroups on the Metadata template. I've cleaned up the rest for you. --Joe Quick 20:25, 9 November 2007 (CST)

DSM criteria - Know you're busy - READ THIS!!!

The APA has explicitly stated, to me directly with regard to the posting of categorical and diagnostic criteria on Wikipedia, that the practice of explicating DSM criteria without their written permission is a violation of copyright.

There are very few psych articles written. What's there is atrocious, quite frankly. That said, it would behoove us from the start, not to avail ourselves of the aforementioned practice before it becomes a legal issue. --Michael J. Formica 19:45, 10 November 2007 (CST)

If they demand that we get their permission, we'll do so. We want to stay in the good graces of professional organizations. You should put this on CZ:Psychology Workgroup as a (proposed) guideline. --Larry Sanger 20:01, 10 November 2007 (CST)

I am not a lawyer but am pretty well read on this sort of stuff, so if I may jump in here a moment. First, I very seriously doubt we can get permission, in this case. The APA keeps the DSM under pretty tight wraps - it is a nice money-maker for them.
The reason why the inclusion at WP is problematic and beyond fair use is that, when you have an article on every or nearly every entry that the DSM does, and you include the criteria for each, you have copied the entire contents of the DSM criteria to one site, even if dispersed across articles. Yikes!
On a CZ with an article corresponding to every DSM entry, CZ would effectively provide a replacement to the DSM, meaning the APA could probably very effectively argue against our use of it as fair, and could show economic harm stemming from CZ's complete or substantial reproduction of each DSM criteria across articles.
So what do you do?
  1. What I would suggest is that a project-wide rule be created (unilaterally by Larry, frankly) that no more than 10% total of a work may exist on CZ pages without written permission. This 10% figure is a standard threshold figure offered by librarians, universities, etc., regarding fair use. Basically if you are quoting 10% or less of a work, and that 10% does not comprise "the heart" of the work, the use is very likely to be fair; but, the more you go above 10%, the less likely it is fair use. Applied, this means that across all CZ psych articles, no more than 10% will include the DSM criteria.
  2. Monitor uses of works like the DSM. This should be a workgroup thing, it'd seem. This might be a good use for a category.
  3. Use alternatives. For example, use the WHO's ICD, which is free online although copyrighted. Also, explicitly ask the WHO for permission to quote the entire contents of their psych entries. It's a great bet they'd say yes, I'd think.
Jumping out now. :-)
Stephen Ewen 20:48, 10 November 2007 (CST)
Stephen, stay jumped in. I could use your assistance.
To your point, you are correct. If you note my italics above, I'm the guy who ran point on trying to get permissions, or at least asking the question about permissions, for Wikipedia. The answer was a resounding 'No.'
I'll try to set this up, in all ways suggested. In the meantime, I will put together a Template that we can use under diagnostic criteria in the psych articles.
PS...Stephen, thanks for the inadvertant lesson on how to make numbered lists...very cool. :)
Blessings...--Michael J. Formica 08:21, 11 November 2007 (CST)
On the whole, I anticipate providers will say yes to CZ much more than WP; but, I don't expect the APA to say yes to anyone who wants to provide the world a free substitute for the DSM! Stephen Ewen 12:49, 11 November 2007 (CST)


will probably be incognito until later Saturday or Sunday

Um.... did you mean incommunicado? Michael Hardy 22:05, 12 November 2007 (CST)

Gee, did I really say that? How embarrassing, I know better than that. --Larry Sanger 22:12, 12 November 2007 (CST)

I thought you were crossdressing :D --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:14, 12 November 2007 (CST)

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. --Larry Sanger 22:18, 12 November 2007 (CST) (woof!)

Check this out?

Hi Larry, could you please have a look at the following User_talk:Aleksander_Stos#Unknown_user? Thanks.--Hendra I. Nurdin 05:21, 13 November 2007 (CST)

Right to disappear

Larry: I'd like to invoke my right to disappear. I have made numerable contributions to several content areas and find that I am getting no help. The project, as I see it, is just too big, and I don't have time for it. Kindly delete my account. Thank you. --Michael J. Formica 05:29, 16 November 2007 (CST)

Michael, it's a shame you aren't getting any help. We could post a call for help, you know--might be effective. There is no "right to disappear" per se. You can stop working, obviously, but for the sake of our readers and your (former) collaborators, we still need to know who Michael J. Formica is. You can strip down your user page, though; see CZ:Leaving the project. I hope you won't.

I don't think the project is "too big." Our growing community simply needs to grow into it. Eventually, it will. Not to be completely banal, but Rome wasn't built in a day and all that. If I expected instant results, I never would have started anything worthwhile... --Larry Sanger 08:10, 16 November 2007 (CST)

With all due respect to your position...bye. --Michael J. Formica 19:39, 27 November 2007 (CST)

Server time problem

Per,1365.0.html, there is something drastically wrong with the server time, or user preference time (not sure which), but the server is reporting edits made (in some cases) more than one hour ahead of time; Aleta, Matt, Hayford, Myself, and Stephen have all noticed it--is someone in the tech department aware? --Robert W King 18:35, 16 November 2007 (CST)

Yeah, I know, I've sent a notice to them, they must be aware of it by now. --Larry Sanger 18:45, 16 November 2007 (CST)

It seems Greg & Eric have fixed this. --Larry Sanger 09:07, 17 November 2007 (CST)

We're out of the Twilight Zone? --Robert W King 09:09, 17 November 2007 (CST)

I wouldn't go that far...but our clocks are working. --Larry Sanger 09:11, 17 November 2007 (CST)


I have reread the articles about authors and editors and i will stick to only editing and writing from now on. I believe you are questioning me about my authorative stance in the music workgroup? Or adding workgroups to the article about dance? Micha van den Berg 20:45, 22 November 2007 (CST)

Micha--I was referring to the fact that you placed Category:Music Editors on your user page. Contributors may not place that tag on their own user pages; it would be placed by me or another editorial personnel administrator. I changed the tag to read "Music Authors"--you are free to group yourself with any set of workgroup authors. --Larry Sanger 22:36, 22 November 2007 (CST)


The latest shit storm at WP involves Durova who was recently the subject of this article by a journalist about ethically editing WP. He makes a point at the bottom of the page about google search results and weighting less towards WP to provide more balance - has anyone emailed him? --Russ McGinn 10:23, 27 November 2007 (CST)

I don't know, I haven't--feel free. --Larry Sanger 10:28, 27 November 2007 (CST)

"If you represent an alternative online encyclopedia please email me, I would love it if you would submit a couple-paragraph introduction of your site and the reason why your content is just as or more deserving than Wikipedia. When I receive your introductions I will blog them promptly."
I'll draft something up on a subpage for your ok Larry. ps. maybe he's not a journalist I stated - "Ross Dunn is the founder and CEO of StepForth Placement Inc. Celebrating its tenth year of operation, StepForth is one of the oldest and most trusted names in search marketing." --Russ McGinn 10:37, 27 November 2007 (CST)
try this for size --Russ McGinn 10:47, 27 November 2007 (CST)
Looks good. don't forget the URL ;-) --Larry Sanger 11:17, 27 November 2007 (CST)
Done. I gave a little personal account of my reasons for leaving WP too. --Russ McGinn 14:42, 27 November 2007 (CST)
The author of the article at SiteProNews recommends this article about how to bury negative content about one's company, in a really ethically-questionable way. While Wikipedia has some significant problems, letting corporate flacks decide how it should change really doesn't seem too useful. I'm not sure we want the sort of publicity these people would give us. Anthony Argyriou 20:08, 27 November 2007 (CST)
Thanks for that Anthony, I confess I hadn't noticed it. I had noticed he was clearly working for a company that assists company's exposure on the internet. My view, for what its worth is - exposure for us is a generally good thing - and what's the worst that can happen? Likely we might get some companies attempting to use citizendium to bolster their profile, but my view is, this should be a test, a) of the collaborative nature of wiki editing and b) citizendium policies. For every company attempting to bury bad news or plug themselves, there will be CZ authors to put the other case - we'll need the backing of good constables alert to the dangers when dealing with company articles - but we may well attract other authors as a result of the exposure. Its a balance that seems worth a punt to me. regards --Russ McGinn 20:31, 27 November 2007 (CST)
Actually, another thought is, assuming we are successful and grow as anticipated, we are likely to see this kind of editing in any event. Dealing with it now at a policy level might be a good idea rather than making it up 'on the hoof' later. --Russ McGinn 20:37, 27 November 2007 (CST)


On another note, I'm probably getting close to seeking an approval for Origins and architecture of the Taj Mahal. We currently don't have an architecture editor. I've added History to the category list because, as almost always with architecture, it overlaps multiple disciplines. I thought about approaching User:Teyfur Erdogdu as he seems to have some experience with Islamic history. What do you think about this? Or should I just get the article up to scratch from my point of view, and wait for an architecture editor to appear? --Russ McGinn 14:42, 27 November 2007 (CST)

If you are willing to do some work, the thing to do is to "make" an architecture editor appear. See CZ:Recruitment. If you post a note saying we're looking for architects to become editors, and in particular we're looking for someone to review the article about the Taj Mahal, that would be great. --Larry Sanger 15:00, 27 November 2007 (CST)
Thanks Larry, I'll have a think about posting to some sites - I might even approach the academics who are the current experts on the Taj who I've used for sources, asking never harms. By the by - "looking for architects to become editors" - architects in the UK do not typically have higher degrees - they have BAs and B.Archs (Bachelor of Architecture) or occasionally BScs and dip.archs - I thought you need architectural academics rather than common or garden architects? --Russ McGinn 15:54, 27 November 2007 (CST)
We're looking for experts in all fields, however genuinely expertise is typically gauged. This usually involves a "terminal degree," which is sometimes not a Ph.D. --Larry Sanger 16:05, 27 November 2007 (CST)

"No Original Research" policy now added

Hi Larry, I filled in the blank page CZ:Original_Research_Policy. See also its Talk page with some questions for clarification from you. Thanks in advance! Harald van Lintel 18:01, 27 November 2007 (CST)

Harald, sorry, I don't have time to go through a new policy set-up right now. I'm deleting the page, but I'll mail us both copies and the Editorial Council can work on it later. Moreover, and please don't take this the wrong way, but it would be best if you actually participated in the community for longer before you attempted to make consequential policy proposals. --Larry Sanger 18:48, 27 November 2007 (CST)

OK then, as explained on its discussion page, I'll wait with contributing until the policies are clair. Also sorry! Harald van Lintel 01:27, 28 November 2007 (CST)
No need to apologize. I do hope you'll get involved. --Larry Sanger 08:22, 28 November 2007 (CST)

New stats images

mmm... for me it looks/links OK, what you report seems to be a cache problem (try reloading Ctrl-F5 or something). Nonetheless, I did some switching between jpg/png, so there might be some mess. Let me know if reloading doesn't work. Aleksander Stos 12:06, 2 December 2007 (CST)

Double articles

Hi Larry, what is CZ policy for double articles like topological space (the original article) and Topological Space (a new article) which addresses the same object? I had left a note about this for the author of the second article here. Thanks. Hendra I. Nurdin 18:15, 4 December 2007 (CST)

There is no set policy about this, I'm afraid, but I would say that the best way forward is to combine the articles, with preference given to the older article if necessary, or else to whichever article was not sourced from Wikipedia. I'd write more, but I'm still travelling... --Larry Sanger 19:24, 4 December 2007 (CST)

I can tell you what I personally do when I come across them. I make sure the content is at the correct article space and then request a {{speedydelete}} at the malformed content. --Robert W King 21:10, 4 December 2007 (CST)
Are you saying you delete the content that's at the "malformed" name? I don't think that's a good way to do it, Robert, because one could easily lose valuable content, and a valuable contributor, that way. In any case, what you or anyone happens to do with them doesn't necessarily mean that's what we should do. We should be open to discussing what we should do, before policy is actually set (of course). --Larry Sanger 21:25, 4 December 2007 (CST)
I thought we had a naming convention already? --Robert W King 22:03, 4 December 2007 (CST)
Yes--it looks like you misunderstood the original problem raised by Hendra. --Larry Sanger 22:32, 4 December 2007 (CST)
You're right, I did. --Robert W King 18:10, 5 December 2007 (CST)

Naming conventions & ethnic disputes, etc.

Mr. Larry Sanger,

I think that the currently moderate size of Citizendium & its tendency to draw dedicated authors offer Citizendium a chance (better than Wikipedia's) for a completely new solution to the naming convention & ethnic disputes. As you remember, I was kicked out of Wikipedia because of these disputes.

Is there any way I could contribute to Citizendium's ethnic dispute/naming policies - I've come to know a lot of problems associated with Wikipedia's very simplistic procedures that look neutral on the surface but provide ways for the disputers to go around.

If our neutrality philosophy is that we add everything inclusively to provide arguments on both side, is simply not realistic on these very complicated ethnic disputes. One main problem with Wikipedia's neutrality policy is that they argue that "it's not in our place to determine what is right or wrong or more accepted or less... So put everything in inclusively". I don't think that's realistic in context of how we write articles in fluent & assertive manner, & will become a big problem if it is the case in Citizendium.

I think that asking you these neutrality questions is the best way for me to show you these vague areas that, when Citizendium gets larger eventually, will attract the very similar problems to Wikipedia's. I would like to work with someone here in Citizendium who has contributed a lot to Citzendium's policy building (I think that would be you?)

  • Argentina claims parts (I think all) of Antarctica & other countries do not recognize Argentina's claims. Should this be on the main article of Antarctica or if not wouldn't it not be considered "POV forking" (in Wikipedia's terms, I don't know if Citizendium has such a word... I think you know what it means)?

These are issues that are more familiar to me:

  • China began the Northeast Project to make an assertion that Korean history is really part of Chinese history - that Goguryeo (per Britannica, a Korean kingdom) was Chinese kingdom. Should this be given equal weight as the widely accepted definition of Goguryeo?

This is much more complicated:

  • Japan & South Korea are in dispute over the islets of Liancourt Rocks (English name)/Dokdo (Korean)/Takeshima (Japan). S. Korea has controlled the islets for 50 years now & several international historical organizations as well as several English authors argue that S. Korea has better claim over the islets. Britannica uses Liancourt Rocks.
  • Should the article name be Liancourt Rocks, Dokdo, or Takeshima? Japan argues for Takeshima; S. Korea argues for Dokdo b/c 1) Takeshima is Japanese 2) Liancourt Rocks "gives in" to the Japanese side & gives equal weight to both
  • 2 argued leads from Wikipedia: 1) Liancourt Rocks administered by S. Korea & claimed by Japan 2) Liancourt Rocks administered by Japan & S. Korea
  • Another argument: In the infobox, "Japan" & the Japanese flag comes first before "S. Korea" & South Korean flag b/c of "alphabetic order" per some article naming policy.

Now should be the time to clear these vague areas up completely. Or else in these articles people will try to take advantage over certain policies & make very serious disputes. For example "Per naming convention that google search can be used to determine the article's name --> even if there was a lot of spam, we should accept the results". In other words, in these disputes, people try to win over every single bit of the dispute- they won't give in & when there are some very obvious problems, they argue that we stick to the exact letter of the law (letter vs. intention of the law) & that the flaws (i.e. spam in google search) is not that big of a deal. (Chunbum Park 23:00, 10 December 2007 (CST))

Sorry, I don't have time right now to follow up with this. I recommend that you start a discussion with our more active editors on the forums. --Larry Sanger 07:38, 11 December 2007 (CST)

Google's Wiki

Google plans to introduce Wikipedia rival. This would be a big business-operated Wiki, with all of Google's ability to funnel its corporate funds into its implementation. CZ would be threatened as well. What can we do about it? Yi Zhe Wu 10:34, 15 December 2007 (CST)

Hi Yi. I've already posted something about this on Citizendium-L (you should be subscribed). The same thing is also on In short: no worries. --Larry Sanger 13:21, 15 December 2007 (CST)

CZ Blog ease of access

Hi Larry

Apols as usual for infrequent activities on CZ. You know the usual work business reasons. Work hazard for many CZ editors I suspect.

I thought your post on the Googlepedia Knol was very good.

But I also thought there needs to be a really easy way for the casual visitor to find the CZ blog.

Maybe it's there already, but the fact I can't easily find it says something. (Quite possibly about me!)

In any case, since CZ is increasingly likely to be quoted as a source of wiki info, I think that blog should be at ground entry level. Personally I think it ought to be in the left hand side click through options from the CZ landing page.

May even try to do myself, but that might well be a landing page nightmare... watch that space. Please! --Ian Johnson 16:24, 15 December 2007 (CST)

I totally am now not going to do it, as I could not work out what text to modify. But I do think that a link -- Chief Editor's blog -- ought to be there. In any academic publication of note I expect to know who their editor is, and read what they bring to the discussion to assess the information I read there. These days, and in a medium such as CZ, I would fully expect such an editorial to reside in the main Editor's blog. Helps to set the tone for the world and improve access for the PR of CZ --Ian Johnson 16:36, 15 December 2007 (CST)

You're right, I guess. We stripped down the sidebar a while back, because people felt it was too messy. Maybe we got rid of too much. What else should we add back in? --Larry Sanger 17:36, 15 December 2007 (CST)

I, and at least one other person whose name I've forgotten, objected to the direct link to Forums suddenly disappearing, to be found under "Communications". I myself have learned to live with this, but I don't think that this is very clear to newcomers.... Hayford Peirce 22:11, 15 December 2007 (CST)
Person whose name Hayford has forgotten. Russell Potter was another. Aleta Curry 03:15, 16 December 2007 (CST)

OK. So: blog and forums. Anything else? --Larry Sanger 23:41, 15 December 2007 (CST) Stephen Ewen 23:52, 15 December 2007 (CST)

English sentences please, Steve.  :-) What should we do with that? --Larry Sanger 23:54, 15 December 2007 (CST)

See for what can be done with it. Stephen Ewen 23:58, 15 December 2007 (CST)
Oh, and look along the left. Stephen Ewen 04:14, 16 December 2007 (CST)
Interesting--yes, we could use something with some functionality like that, but that tool doesn't get it right. Can the geeky "folders" presentation be replaced with something snazzier? --Larry Sanger 11:32, 16 December 2007 (CST)

OK, I've added a "communication" section to the sidebar. I guess I was right originally when I had a zillion links in the sidebar...someone (I forget who) complained that it was too messy. It does look messier now...well, we need a snazzy tool something like the one Steve points out above. --Larry Sanger 11:43, 16 December 2007 (CST)

It is apparently customizable; you can place whatever links you want in the "tree view." See the usages section. Stephen Ewen 13:38, 16 December 2007 (CST)

Whoa. That's nice--that's really nice. So, it's fully customizable? Then I'm thinking that we should upload the extension and use it. If you could do follow up on that, I'd be very appreciative, Steve! --Larry Sanger 14:13, 16 December 2007 (CST)

Sure. In the meantime, people may wonder why the links you added might not be showing up consistently. If my experience making many edits to the Mediawiki space is foretelling, the changes may take time to consistently show up due to cache issues. The ins-and-outs of that are mysterious to me, but this would be the cause. Stephen Ewen 00:15, 17 December 2007 (CST)

Yep, that's right. I'll try resaving the data, to see if that helps. --Larry Sanger 09:19, 17 December 2007 (CST)

More guidelines

Okay, one of Joe's recent posts to the forums got me thinking--should really get to work on some of the subpages guides. Joe mentioned debate guide, so I went there and he's right, it's blank. So I thought I'd draft something, looked at catalogs for guidance, that's blank, too and Larry said way back when that we needed to fill it in, nothing's happened since, so I started filling--bare bones stuff--since I actually use cataloges.

If you don't like it, erase and let me know to stop.

Aleta Curry 15:53, 16 December 2007 (CST)

Excellent! Thanks, Aleta. We are looking for people to do exactly this. --Larry Sanger 16:58, 16 December 2007 (CST)

Editor's dilemma

Dear Larry, as far as I'm aware only two chemistry editors are active at the moment. This poses the dilemma: to write or not to write. See Talk:Phosphorus. --Paul Wormer 04:06, 21 December 2007 (CST)

I'd say write. Writing articles is more important than approving them, at this point. That said, after the license announcement today, I'll finally be free to turn my attention back to recruitment and process improvement. I have a several ideas for making the editors we have more active, and getting new editors on board--it's just a matter of finding the time to implement them. --Larry Sanger 08:41, 21 December 2007 (CST)

Writing is very important at this point, but as you, Larry, pointed out last week, what makes us different form the other wikies is our team of experts who guide the writing process. We don't have that team of experts yet. It think some priority time needs to be spent on building that team. If we build the team, then the writing will get done in the process. Finding new editors is, I think, very important for us at this stage. Derek Harkness 04:41, 24 December 2007 (CST)

Well, let's be clear, Derek. We have many active editors, which sometimes act in teams with editors, and more often act in teams with authors. What we don't have, but would like to have, is a full range of editorial workgroups that act as teams, or working in any configuration that would lead to a higher rate of article approval. Our biggest challenge, I think, is not so much finding and recruiting people (though we must do that, too), it is actually in creating a process that editors are actually motivated to participate in. On this, I have ideas I will inflict on you if nothing better comes along (there's a relevant forums discussion going on right now). --Larry Sanger 09:41, 24 December 2007 (CST)

Paul, I think there is some truth to the cliché "build it (write the articles) and they (the approving editors) will come". :-) Stephen Ewen 13:12, 24 December 2007 (CST)
Maybe we need a greater recruiting effort? There are hundreds of groups out there, and it doesn't seem like we've gone the distance to even try to reach 1%. --Robert W King 13:18, 24 December 2007 (CST)

Recruitment is definitely a top priority. See CZ:Recruitment (did you forget about that already? :-) ). What we should be thinking about is new processes, new initiatives, etc., that will motivate people (or groups of people) to do this recruitment work. There are many ways to make it happen... --Larry Sanger 13:59, 24 December 2007 (CST)

live articles

Remember when the live articles count on the front page went down? It happened again tonight. It seems to be an effect of the subpagination work. When you delete the categories from an article and then add the subpages template, it takes a while for the articles to reappear among the live articles. --Joe Quick 21:05, 23 December 2007 (CST)

I see. Yep, jumped the gun again. --Larry Sanger 21:12, 23 December 2007 (CST)

Sign up form

I noticed that the 'Citizendium Getting Started' template is back at the top of this. It seems to clutter the page a bit and you can't really use it without moving away from the form unless you use the browser's "open in a new window" option. I just don't want the sign up page to look too long or confusing. Note that the template also shows once people click the "submit" button, which IMO, is a more appropriate time. Once they have made the request, they can they go on reading about the details of being an author and such. Aaron Schulz 16:03, 26 December 2007 (CST)

Aaron, it's just a matter of making things more findable and user-friendly for new people. People will frequently poke around a website before deciding to create a new account. That template contains basically everything they need to know to make an informed decision; it's very important. --Larry Sanger 16:09, 26 December 2007 (CST)
I see what you are saying, but for the above reasons I still worry a bit. Aaron Schulz 16:16, 26 December 2007 (CST)

By the way, I changed the relevant extension so that if someone viewed a request up to X minutes ago, it shows the last such person as viewing the request. This to avoid duplicated effort as the number of requests goes up. X is 10 min for now, is that about right? Aaron Schulz 16:16, 26 December 2007 (CST)

Ten minutes sounds good. What I'd like to talk about next is something to add that allows people to say they'd like to be considered for editorship--that would result in a mail sent to Could be very simple. --Larry Sanger 16:25, 26 December 2007 (CST)
I did add resume/CV uploads a while ago. I was hoping it could be done by the constables. If it is absolutely necessary, I can add a checkbox or something that sends an email. Aaron Schulz 18:34, 26 December 2007 (CST)
Well, checking a checkbox would certainly get a lot more people interested in and aware of the possibility of editorship. We've had a zillion author applications and very few of those have been converted into editor applications since we started using your extension, so I think this is a problem. Few things are "absolutely necessary" but I am very sure this would help a lot! --Larry Sanger 19:00, 26 December 2007 (CST)
For people who appear like editor material, I'll often add a note in the reply saying we'd welcome their application as such, but it'd be just awesome if all it took was a tick to "I wish my application to be additionally considered for editorship", which then sent the application to another que browsable by editorial personnel admins. This avoids giving applicants another step. Of course, a drawback will be that ed personnel will have more to weed through, but I think that's an acceptable trade-off to facilitate ease of editorship. Stephen Ewen 22:25, 26 December 2007 (CST)
OK, so if something similar were done, would the extension still need to send an email to since the staff would be checking it anyway? Aaron Schulz 00:24, 27 December 2007 (CST)
I'll let Larry weigh in. I personally bias doing as much on-wiki as possible. My idea would also require creating a class of user rights to give personnel admins access to the applications - not a big deal at all, of course, and it would probably be easier than getting them into the IMAP account. Stephen Ewen 00:32, 27 December 2007 (CST)
So Larry, a tick and an email sent to personnel, or a tick and the application sent into a separate Ed Personnel Admin que after their author account is made? Stephen Ewen 11:09, 28 December 2007 (CST)

The latter would obviously be strongly preferable; I was only thinking about what Aaron is willing & had time to do. --Larry Sanger 11:13, 28 December 2007 (CST)

Re: Enlightenment

You stopped me in the middle of an edit. Enlightment and The Enlightenment are two different things. I trust, in good faith, that you will revert, your reversion of my work. --Michael J. Formica 19:04, 26 December 2007 (CST)

I agree, they are different things. Nevertheless, the CZ article titled Enlightenment concerns The E., not what Buddha sought. --Larry Sanger 19:12, 26 December 2007 (CST)

Larry, my apologies. I wrote in haste. Whomever (I didn't look, as it's immaterial) reverted my move/edit in the middle got me boxed up, and your intervention was so quick I just ass-u-me-d it was you. I was on my way out the door to dinner, and, in addition to the momentary frustration, was being harrassed by two gorgeous women to get in the damn car!

Anyway, since we last connected, some others have contributed to the The Enlightenment. I created redirects to that page from Age of Enlightenment and The Age of Enlightement, per your suggestion. In addition, I added some lame, but appropriate content to Enlightenment, and am about to enlist the help of some colleagues to flesh that out.

Again, my apologies for being hasty. Blessings... --Michael J. Formica 08:50, 27 December 2007 (CST)

No problem, it was obvious that it was just a misunderstanding. --Larry Sanger 08:52, 28 December 2007 (CST)

Re: Wiki enjoying excellent activity lately

Dear Dr. Sanger,

Congrats on the wonderful work for which you acted as spiritual midwife. :-) I just wanted to say hi and offer you words of encouragement. I can only imagine the licensing stuff is a big headache right now and I hope it all works out. I felt like dropping you a note for a good while now, and I finally gathered up the courage. ;-)

Kindest regards, Wills

William Porquet 00:46, 28 December 2007 (CST)

Thanks, Wills. The licensing headache is over, if you didn't hear about it. See and spread the word!  :-) --Larry Sanger 08:49, 28 December 2007 (CST)

Lists of peaks in mountain range articles

Hi Larry, in the Alps article, you have deleted a table of prominent peaks with a comment that it belongs in a catalog. Still, wouldn't it be useful to have a list of important peaks of a mountain range included in its main article, at least until the article gets into a good shape, and maybe then move the list into a separate article and point at it under the See also section? My best regards, Igor Grešovnik 10:01, 29 December 2007 (CST)

I'm sorry I have to disagree. It's not that I don't want your work to be visible (and you can increase its visibility by adding a link to the list of major peaks within the body of the article; "see also" is found in the "Related Articles" tab), it's that I don't want contributors to substitute lists of data with what should be English prose paragraphs. Now that we officially make the distinction, and have a way to, between proper articles and ancillary information, we ought to use the distinction.

Definitely such lists should not be on a separate article page, just because they aren't articles. There are catalogs and lists even now on article pages, but this is left over from an earlier (pre-subpages) era and will in time be completely fixed.

Obviously, we do things differently than Wikipedia does them, and this is apt to be a little confusing, I imagine... --Larry Sanger 10:28, 29 December 2007 (CST)