Citizendium - a community developing a quality, comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free.
Click here to join and contribute
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report

User talk:Milton Beychok/Archive 6

From Citizendium
Jump to: navigation, search


I just archived the last batch of postings

That is why this page looks rather empty at this moment. Milton Beychok Milton Beychok 18:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

an article of interest (maybe)

Would this article be useful to you for any of the subjects you've been working on around here? It is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution license, which means that its contents may be reused as long as credit is given. I assume that goes for the photos and diagrams too, which might be of some use. --Joe Quick 14:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Joe, that article would indeed be a good one for CZ and would work for inclusion in the Engineering and/or the Biology Workroups as well as the Chemical Engineering subgroup. However, it is a part of Chemical Engineering and/or Biochemical Engineering (see Chemical engineering) in which I have no no expertise or experience. I would be reluctant to just copy an article in a field I know practically nothing about.
Perhaps someone in the Biology Workgroup (like Chris Day, who is a Biology Editor) would be qualified to work on that article? Milton Beychok 15:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Cryptography

Thank you for becoming an approving editor on brute force attack. There's been discussion and some change to the article since it was proposed. Please have a look, see if you can still support.

There's a long list of crypto articles that I think are near approval. One thing I'd really like is for someone who isn't in the field to look through Block_cipher#Principles_and_techniques and see if it makes sense. I think it should, but I don't really know. Would you have time for that? Sandy Harris 08:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I stiil support the nomination. See my comment on the article's talk page. Milton Beychok 14:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Milt. Thanks for the response you posted on Larry's talk page. Hendra I. Nurdin 05:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Chemical Corps

Sure. I think I created it at a time when someone was on a lower case rampage and I was tired of the changing. As the Brits say, capital idea.

Interesting thought: is that, as well as the chemical weapon/warfare material, appropriate to come under chemical engineering? Howard C. Berkowitz 22:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have renamed it to Chemical Corps. As for it coming under the Chemical Engineering Subgroup, I think that is borderline okay for this one article. Maybe also borderline okay for the Chemistry Workgroup. In general, I think it and all related articles should be kept under the Military Workgroup. Milton Beychok 01:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Timing

Milton your clock is two hours behind. It seems that the CZ timing went completely crazy, I tried to edit the talk page of vapor pressure and it seems to have done somewhere in the past with the net effect that my edits are lost.--Paul Wormer 17:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Approval

Hi Milton, I approved all three now. I considered the process smooth sailing, I hope you did too. --Paul Wormer 23:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It was smooth sailing indeed! Thanks very much. Milton Beychok 23:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Milt, I made a few changes to Specific heat ratio. Please take a look. --Daniel Mietchen 10:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Vapor pressure approved, April 14th -- Congratulations

Hi, Milton, the Vapor pressure article has been approved and protected! Congrats! Hayford Peirce 04:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Relative volatility approved, April 15th, Congratulations!

Hi, Milt, your article has been Approved -- you can see it at Relative volatility. Hayford Peirce 16:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

adding a null space

Hmmm, I see that I guess I have to add the null space to the Draft version of the article in question rather than to the Waiting for Approvals page, which is where I tried doing it. Hayford Peirce 16:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations again!

I've just Approved the Specific heat ratio article. But this time I'm not gonna waste any of my time trying to "jog" the flippin' Metadata -- let someone else do it, hehe! Hayford Peirce 18:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for unveiling the engineer's mind.

Smart nerds, those engineers, thank you for sharing this with me. --Paul Wormer 23:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Gasoline nominated for approval

Milton, I nominated Gasoline for approval. Thanks for the rewording of the stability section. David E. Volk 17:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

pillars

Updated figure showing pillars in an old vs modern mine

Milt, did you notice I upgraded the hand drawing. If it is still the old one empty your cache and then look at it. Chris Day 16:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is useful and you want some modifcations i can make changes for you. Chris Day 16:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Chris, I replaced the hand-drawn sketches with a much better diagram from the Kentucky Geological Survey (KGS). At the time that I did that, the old hand-drawn sketchs were still in the article. I did not realize that you had updated the sketches until you just notified me. In fact, the History page of the article still shows the old sketchs.
In any event, I think that the KGS diagram is probably all we need for that article. Thanks, Milton Beychok 17:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
No problem, i like the one you added. Note, I only upgraded the pillar one. i did not do the drift vs open vs shaft mining figure. Chris Day 17:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Malt, Milton, and God

Milton, truly, Housman had it right, "Malt does more than Milton can to justify God's ways to man." But he also wrote, "Ale, man, ale's the stuff to drink for fellows whom it hurts to think."

If you quote Housman, don´t you think you should write a CZ article on him? Even if it hurts to think. WP has one. Anthony.Sebastian 02:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Anthony, I didn't make that quote ... it was Hayford Pierce. I was just an innocent bystander who happened to be named Milton. Milton Beychok 02:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
That happens to be my favorite poem. About the only one in the world, I guess, aside from other Housman poems, that I can understand. And that rhyme.... Hayford Peirce 03:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you know the new guy?

User:Richard_C_Mason
It seems like there would be a lot of overlap with what you two would be interested in working on. --Joe Quick 04:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read his bio and I hope that he will be active. I'll keep my fingers crossed. Milton Beychok 05:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you could invite him to contribute to an article you've worked on. Personal contact from peers or others with similar interests always seems best for encouraging new people to become active contributors. --Joe Quick 20:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Joe, have a look at his Talk page where I have done what you suggested. What do you think? Milton Beychok 01:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Who knows whether we'll ever hear from him again but I'd say we've done what we can to encourage him. I replied to your post on my talk page there -- I've run into roadblocks with addressing the licensing stuff a couple of times. Please keep reminding me and I'll try to find time to figure it out. --Joe Quick 01:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Gasoline article approved

Congrats, Milton, the Gasoline article is now, God willing, Approved by yours truly! It even has a bar across the Talk screen that other Approved articles apparently don't have.... Hayford Peirce 20:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Drafts

Well done, Milton! I gotta say that I wuz gettin' awful frickin' tired of seein' those same two things there for what seems to me to have been *months* on end.... Hayford Peirce 03:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Hayford. The instructions said the updating should be done by a "program administrator". I don't know who they are, but I apologise to them if I offended them by doing it this time. Milton Beychok 03:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I *know* -- I read that too! And I thought at the time that there was a particular one person in charge of it. Otherwise I would have make a change myself of some sort three weeks ago! Yet another CZ thingee where, I fear, it is Not Clear on the Concept.... Or perhaps on the execution.... Hayford Peirce 03:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Hi Milton, I shall withdraw my vote as requested. Meg Ireland 02:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops...

Sorry, misplaced vote, I should have paid attention to under which category I was signing. Yi Zhe Wu 04:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"Ethyl" Anecdotes

Hi Milton,

It seems that in your work on the Lead and Tetraethyl lead articles, some of the little anecdotal stories about Kettering and the material's manufacture at the Ethyl Corp. seem to have been eliminated. I kind of liked those, and it leaves me to wonder: do you feel that they were not accurate? --David Yamakuchi 14:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, David. If you will read the dicussion pages of both the Lead and the Tetraethyl lead (TEL) articles, you will see that:
  • I first expressed my opinion that the TEL history section ("Lead as a fuel additive") of the Lead article was was much too long , about 35-40% of the article. After all, that article was about the element Lead ... not about the liquid compound TEL. I proposed shortening that section a great deal and creating a separate, stand-alone article about TEL. Chris Day, Joe Quick and Ro Thorpe all agreed and told me to go ahead ... so I did.
  • When I created the new, stand-alone TEL article I included a sub-section header for History (with two excellent references to online articles about Midgley, Kettering and the early history of TEL). Then in the Talk page of the TEL article, I noted that more work was need on the TEL article and I hoped that someone knowlegeable about TEL would work on it. If nobody steps forth to review the article and write that History section in the next few weeks, then I will try my hand at it.
I just felt that I had done enough and that someone else could add the finishing touches. However, I do feel that the TEL history section should be more concise and shorter than the section that was once in the Lead article.
Would you like to try writing that History section of the new, stand-alone TEL article? Please feel free to do so. Regards, Milton Beychok 15:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Stanneken's paper on NO synthases

Milton, I had emailed Stanneken about getting permissions for the drawings, but have not heard back from. I'll contact him again. Thanks for the nudge. Anthony.Sebastian 03:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Milton, Stan appears not to have read the rules about images, or understand the issue. I put it to him pointedly, and cc'd you by email. Anthony.Sebastian 21:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Chemistry editorship

Citizendium Editor Policy
The Editor Role | Approval Process | Article Deletion Policy | Other
See also: Citizendium Council | Content Policy | Help for Editors
Home
Getting Started Organization Communication Technical Help Initiatives
Policies Editor Guidance Content Guidance Article Lists Governance
Welcome Page

Welcome, new editor! We're very glad you've joined us. Here are pointers for a quick start. Also, when you get a chance, please read The Editor Role. You can look at Getting Started and our help system for other introductory pages. It is also important, for project-wide matters, to join the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list. Announcements are also available via Twitter. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any administrator for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and thank you! We appreciate your willingness to share your expertise, and we hope to see your edits on Recent changes soon. --Larry Sanger 16:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I see Larry took care of this for you already. I meant to do it this weekend but my connection electron connections were not available. David E. Volk 16:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Congrats Milt! D. Matt Innis 21:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Larry, David and Matt. Milton Beychok 22:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
So what are you going to approve first, Mr. Editor? :-) --Joe (Approvals Manager), 03:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ketoconazole

Hello Milton. No, I didn't have time to look at that during the week, but will give it a going over this weekend. David E. Volk 23:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Milton, I think I fixed ketoconazole to satisfaction (?). I renamed the external links on the main page as Primary Sources, because they are the primary sources, and I also repeated them on the External Links page, change the Related Articles stuff, etc. Please take a look. In the meantime, I think I will try to make more columns for the Synonyms and Brand Names to condense the material. David E. Volk 13:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I am going to nominate the article. Milton Beychok 16:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Milton, I have addressed most of the things mentioned by Anthony, but I am not sure why marijuana and beta-blockers are banned. The darn site went down just as I was making my last edits earlier today. David E. Volk 20:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this should be on the article page, but beta-blockers are performance-enhancing in shooting sports, by eliminating or minimizing benign tremor. For sports that require maximum cardiovascular output, they may decrease performance. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Re Drugs banned from the Olympics

Milton, I found David's changes satisfactory. I give my co-approval. Anthony.Sebastian 00:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Drug article approved!

Congratulations, Milton, the Olympics drug article was just approved (I hope) -- this time the process took, with my new, improved instructions written by me and continuously updated as I go along, 26 minutes including this note! Hayford Peirce 16:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

PS, it's not important to *me*, but it might be to others: when you (and I) tried yesterday or the day before to change the date of the version being approved, the date DID NOT CHANGE. It stayed at May 27, I think, instead of being changed to June 3rd or whatever. Do you know why? Do you know how this *could* be done so that it would work in the future? Thanks! Hayford Peirce 16:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I *know* that the version url changed as it should, because I checked that. However, I did not change the date of the nomination ... because I was not and am not aware that we were supposed to do that as well. I really don't think that it matters if the nomination date is also changed or not. Perhaps you should check that with Matt.
I just re-read the instructions at here and it does not say that changing the nomination date is required. Milton Beychok 17:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay, wuz just wondering. I personally think that if we've gonna go to all this trouble to make everything in the approval process so nit-pickin' perfect, then the date of the version approved for approval *ought* to be clearly visible as the actual date of the version approved. There are a thousand words in the approval process instructions about how to approve an *earlier* date, I think, but I haven't bothered to read them, on the grounds that they are too complicated and that I myself will *never* do it this way. Either I approve the absolute latest version or I won't approve anything at all. Hayford Peirce 17:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
You're the Kop. If you think the date of the latest version is needed, simply change the instructions at here and I will do it in the future. It really only takes another few seconds to add a date. Its no big deal. Milton Beychok 19:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Those are complicated instructions, so the hell with it. Approvals don't come up very often, and this particular sort of thing even less often. I'll worry about it the next time it happens. Hayford Peirce 20:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The important thing is that the version that is approved has been read and approved by all three editors. Otherwise, changes may be made that one of the editors did not get to read. The date of the version is not important - it's the version. But, that date does help me to determine if all three editors have seen the latest changes. IF not, I approve the version that was last seen by all three. Make sense... most of the time it is the last version, but sometimes it isn't.. and I think that on that occasion, it is an important distinction. D. Matt Innis 00:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

New Draft of the Week - formatting test

Hi Milt, I have been fiddling around with the formatting of the Article of the Week and New Draft of the Week and would be thankful if you would play the guinea pig (in terms of testing the documentation) by changing the formatting for the New Drafts. I will also ask Howard and Sandy, so please do one article at a time. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 05:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

As you know by now, I really like what you have done to the AOTW formatting. I can see that you have not yet completely done the same thing for the NDOTW. I would be pleased to help by being a guinea pig but I don't understand what you want me to do. Please spell out in detail what you want me to do ... and I will try it. Milton Beychok 05:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, in principle, it means having a closer look at the documentation of {{Candidate}} and following the steps indicated there, perhaps occasionally peeping into the examples given, searching for occurences of ""onlyinclude" and "includeonly" (in pairs, the first without, the second with leading "/"). It also means surrounding "{{subpages}}" by such a pair of "noinclude" (without and with "/"). Finally, replacing "rpl" in the nomination table by "Candidate" should do the trick. If you have specific problems, please ask again or send me a screenshot. --Daniel Mietchen 05:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
My edits to air preheater were meant as practice, but for you rather than me. With a little help from Caesar, you now have another sample to look at. Please try to apply a similar treatment to the other NDotW candidates. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 14:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

minor revision to the Approval process - just the plain name of the Editors should be used

Hi, Milt, according to Matt Innis, on the Metadata template page, where the ToA editors are listed, their names should be shown (written) as plain Milton Byechok, NOT as Milton Beychok. I *know* that many Editors have been doing it this way, and I have Approved articles in which this info appeared like that. But, apparently, this is both wrong *and* may cause some subtle problems in the final version of an Approved article. If you've got any questions about this, though, please address them to Matt, not me -- I don't have a *klew* as to the rights and wrongs of the issue. Thanks. I bring it up only because I'll be Approved the ket. article in a little while. I'll make the appropriate change in that particular article.... Hayford Peirce 20:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, problem. Milton Beychok 21:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Congrats, Keto article now approved!

I think I did it right this time, Milt.... Hayford Peirce 22:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In 15 minutes, not bad! D. Matt Innis 00:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Twenty-three -- I wrote long Summary box notes for Ruth, and made minor notes on my working Instructions. Otherwise it would have been 15. Am now gonna make a couple of minor revisions on the Instructions at the Kops page and links.... Hayford Peirce 00:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Boo-boo

Milt, that boo-boo looks like one of those things you don't want in your approved article. Since you wrote the article and David Volk approved it, if you want me to change it I will, so long as we leave a message on David and Joe's talk pages. If there is a problem, they can let me know and I will change it back. D. Matt Innis 02:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It would be well to fix that boo-boo in the approved article. That way, it doesn't have to wait for a Re-approval. So have at it (including alerting David and Joe). Milton Beychok 02:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Done. D. Matt Innis 02:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. :-) --Joe(16:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)) Approvals Manager

Discussion about chemical elements moved to Talk:Chemical elements.--Paul Wormer 10:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Page names: uppercase or lowercase?

Hi, this is a minor question, but I'd like to know: In Elements you changed "chemical elements" to "Chemical elements". I thought that, in normal text, the usual lowercase should be used. Did I misunderstand something? Peter Schmitt 09:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Peter. In the sentence, "For elements in chemistry see: Chemical elements", the reader is being referred to a specific article named "Chemical elements" and not to chemical elements in general. In other words, it seems to me that any article being referred to in any disambiguation page or anywhere else should usually be written exactly as the article is named. (I say "usually" because there might be some very special cases somewhere).
As an analogy, in referring to the movie named "Titanic", would you write "For a good movie, see titanic" or would you write "For a good movie, see Titanic" ? Regards, Milton Beychok 16:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
I see. It is not rule, but a matter of correct English. Thanks. Peter Schmitt 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: But, as I see now, this seems to contradict advise given for "Related articles" pages. Peter Schmitt 11:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Heat

Milton, I wrote Heat and I have the same uneasy feeling about it as about Energy. I find both concepts very difficult to explain and looking back in my memory (and also in textbooks) I understand why: nobody defines the concepts properly, everybody relies on intuition. Anyway, could you do me another favor and go over Heat? Thank you.--Paul Wormer 12:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your user page, so I don't know what your credentials are. Maybe my suggestion is old news. But here is the way the concept of heat was described to me. Heat is a form of radiation. It is a simple scientific defenition. You can further expand on that through explaining convection, convention, and radiation.
Of course, it's been along time since I've heard someone with real credentials explaining it, so I may have garbled it horribly.Drew R. Smith 13:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Drew, radiation, convection, and conduction (convention?) are three different phenomena; they share the property that they can transport heat.--Paul Wormer 15:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Paul, right now I am trying to finish up another article that I've been working on for about a week. So bear with me, I'll look at Heat when I get a chance. Milton Beychok 16:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Drew, Paul Wormer is a retired professor of theoretical chemistry and he has written literally over 100 articles on chemistry and physics in Citizendium. Its a good idea to look at the user page and user contributions page of people with whom you discuss on CZ. I know it helps me to do that. Milton Beychok 16:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Drew, I second Milton's remarks here -- you really ought to check out the user page of *anyone* before questioning, or even *vaguely* wondering about their credentials -- that's what user pages are for. Hayford Peirce 17:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't questioning anyones credentials. I was pointing out that I didn't know what his credentials were, so my observation may have been old news to him. I apologize if I offended anyone.Drew R. Smith 04:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've got a question.

I know this isn't really your area of expertise, but I can't figure out which workgroup it would fall under.

I want to write an article about the native people of hawaii, but I'm not sure what to name it. Would it be Hawaiian, or Hawaiians, Native Hawaiians, or Hawaiian People?

I couldn't find any examples of other articles on similar subjects either, so I wanted to get your opinion on it.Drew R. Smith 04:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hawaiians. With a couple of redirects from Hawai'ians or whatever the *real* word is, as well as from Hawaiians (people) and variations thereof. Hayford Peirce 05:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Hayford. This will be my biggest undertaking yet, and I want to make sure I get it right. Do you happen to know what workgroup this would fall under?Drew R. Smith 05:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, just to get started, why don't you stick in "Anthropology", "Geography", and "Linguistics", off the top of my head. Workgroups, as I understand it, are NOT set in stone. People can change them (with REASONS given) from one to another. The only limitation is that there can only be three of them. Hayford Peirce 05:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Drew, Joe Quick has a degree in Anthropology ... I think you might do well to ask his opinion. Milton Beychok 05:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)