User talk:D. Matt Innis/Archive 9

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search

How'd I do??

Using the photo upload feature was a snap. Just like wikiHow in usability. Added the photo and included
the attribution in the cutline. I'm not sure if that's the "right" way here or not. An editor can change
it, if desired. Thanks so much for all your help. See: [1]

Mary Ash 23:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Mary Ash


Hi Matt, you forgot to add an {{archive box}}! --Chris Key 14:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE don't resign!

Matt, please don't resign. We need you and CZ will lose a major force for good if you resign. Please reconsider. Milton Beychok 05:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already spoken to you privately. Whilst I hope you reconsider, I understand your reasons. Enjoy being an author again! --Chris Key 09:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Popping in to say "hi!"

I wish you had not resigned from your position. You are truly needed here. Thanks to you I stayed and have contributed a few articles. More will be on the way. Please keep in touch as you are the first, and only, net friend I've made here. Mary Ash 05:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thought you'd like to read this in reference to this article and how I am trying to learn how to do references without HELP from your editors. (unindent)I've done my best to add the citations you requested. I hope you are enjoying your laugh fest at my feeble attempts to learn how to do this. May you all enjoy your party at my expense of trying to learn and help. Mary Ash 02:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Mary Ash 02:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just added this:

I DO UNDERSTAND THAT! Shouting intended. What I don't understand is how a wiki that desperately needs authors treats them so poorly. You've treated me like I am supposed to LEARN everything about your wiki INSTANTLY and I am sorry to say that's impossible. I am bright but not bright enough to learn in a second what took you guys awhile to learn. I did try to add the references and I am sure there'll be complaints about how the article should be deleted because it wasn't done right. There is no winning. May you all enjoy your little party of a few as it will remain that way until YOUR wiki learns to ENCOURAGE new authors rather than stomp on them until they desire not to help at all. Yesterday I was in a quandary as to what to do. I love writing and I would love to write here but it's nye impossible due to the hostile environment. So go enjoy your laugh at my expense and feel good about yourselves for running me off. I quit unless a constable (which I notified) takes action to improve my ability to contribute here. May you all do your happy, happy dance. Mary Ash 02:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried copy and pasting wiki markup from another page as I have never done this. Two of your editors have refused to help after criticizing the article for lack of references. I did leave all references used in the exlinks. As for now I quit. I'm sorry I know how hard you tried to help me. I know how hard I tried to reach out to you guys. I'm sorry but it's not going to work out unless this become a less hostile environment. I did leave forum message to that effect too. On a positive note: Ro and Aleta both have been very helpful and encouraging. I will miss them as they represented the best of CZ. Mary Ash 03:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I put one of your references in on the bottom of the page using the link that I put on your talk page. Take a look. You have to check off a few of those check boxes (including 'use the ref tags'), but just use trial and error and you'll be an expert in no time. I wouldn't bother asking some people to help. D. Matt Innis 03:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Some of the statements above are quite inaccurate. The issue was not markup, but the absence of bibliographic information. See Hayford's comment as well. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(unident) Well I could write that's full of excrement but I won't. This is what I posted to the Mack talk page. I have included citations in the exlinks and I've written that all along. Posted to talk page: You can NOT expect someone to learn ALL that YOU know in two weeks. I've complied with every request made by CZ editors once I learned what was needed. I DO understand stylebooks and citations. I was required as a PAID journalist to LEARN the AP Stylebook as part of my job. I also kept a copy of my AP Stylebook at my desk for reference. NO ONE including YOU or anyone else has sent me to a link explaining how to insert the references. I HAVE included every reference used in every article written at CZ. They were in the exlinks and I notified the editors and anyone else where to find them. Nor has anyone bothered to show me HOW to insert the Wiki Mark Up the whole time I've tried to learn. As to the photo insertions, and I've done plenty at wikiHow and as a paid journalist, I gave appropriate credit. The source was listed along with a link to where the photo could be found. What I have discovered is some folks at CZ are friendly and helpful. Some are not. Some people's priority to criticize others seems to exceed their priority to have the site succeed.Mary Ash 04:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Left this on the Mack talk page

Hubby dearest has asked that I not contribute here after reading the comments left by some of the CZ contributors. He read the talk page comments and could not believe the comments made and lack of support offered by some of the key CZ contributors here.

My physical health is not the best and my trip through CZ has now lead me to call the doctor today. I'm sure my doctor will want to run a CBC and liver panel to evaluate my health.

Chris, Matt, Ro and Aleta thank you for being very encouraging and positive. CZ could use a few more people like you. I forgot to add the biggest reason I stayed as long as I did was because Matt was so kind to me. You are the shining examples of what wiki contributors should be. A good wiki creates a supportive environment and helps each other look good. For example: one wiki contributor may be good at editing and adding wiki mark up while another is good at writing. In a good wiki they would collaborate and help each other make their wiki the best it could be.

I am sorry it didn't work out. If my health improves I may return. Mary Ash 16:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to creating an environment where people like you can work and actually have fun. Do keep an eye out, and don't forget to vote in the upcoming elections. D. Matt Innis 17:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Assistance with userpage

When I signed up I provided more personal information than I probably should have , especially as it was copied over to my userpage on creation. My userpage as it is now is fine, as I have removed the information, but obviously it is still avaiable in the page history. Could you please assist in rendering this personal information inaccessible? Or possibly pass this request to someone who can? The simplest methods that cpme to mind would be to delete the page and then recreate it with the current content, or to simply change the visibility of the older versions (there are only 2). Bradley Fleming 01:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Bradley, we could use a little more information in our bios! We want people to know who we are at Citizendium ;) Let me know if I can help with anything else. If I'm not available, feel free to ask anyone and I'm sure they will be glad to help. D. Matt Innis 01:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I will probably getting around to expanding the bio, but without some of the information that was removed. Bradley Fleming 01:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo Attribution

This morning, after feeling so much better, I realized why I was doing this. Any work done for hire and any work paid for by the US Government, or by an employee of the US Government, is considered work for hire or public domain. See: Attribution automatically goes to the agency that paid for the work and since we all paid for the federal government photo it's considered public domain. That means the Mack article and the Osprey article were correctly attributed by me. It would be best to change the current attributions to the Harvard Press Office and US Government for those photos as they are now incorrect. It is nice to credit the photographer, if known, but the correct and presumably legal attribution goes to the agencies involved. I fulfilled my ethical and professional responsibility by notifying Citizendium of their error. Mary Ash 15:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Mary, if you will look closely at the photo of John E. Mack that you uploaded, the photo itself has attribution to Harvard Press at the bottom (in very small print). As for the the V-22 Osprey photo you uploaded, the current credit line (which I added as required by CZ) has both the U.S. Navy (which is the government agency) and their photographer's name (who took the photo). So all is well. Thanks for your comment and concern. Milton Beychok 17:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Petroleum naphtha is due for final approval today

Hi, Matt: Can you do the final approval or is that done only by Hayford? Milton Beychok 17:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Something strange with approval of Petroleum naphtha

Matt, although the Draft version of the approved article has the references intact, somehow the locked, approved section does not have the references. What happened? Milton Beychok 17:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was weird! It totally removed the refs. I have just started using Apples Safari browser and it has some kinks. It could also be that I just added that WikiEd that makes the refs show up a different color. I'll bet that had something to do with it. I'll keep an eye out next time! I'm glad you caught it (and Hayford fixed it :) D. Matt Innis 21:12, 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)
I'm just glad it got straightened out. Thanks all, Milton Beychok 22:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Used the reference maker link to write this article

I used the reference link maker to create this article. It took me about four hours to research and write this article. I used the reference tool you sent which made it so easy. Let me know what you think, if you have time. Thanks! Mary Ash 04:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Requesting Constable Assistance

Request Constable assistance concerning edits and accusations concerning this article: Check the talk page and edit history and you will discover the continued harassment and demeaning behavior by one of your admins. Explain to me why I bothered to try again?Mary Ash 20:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mary, I'll take a look. D. Matt Innis 21:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

I'm sorry but I just needed to vent. Almost, well every article I have submitted, has been a battle. Mary Ash 01:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Apology accepted. You can vent all you want... just hit cancel instead of save ;)
Nobody promised that collaboration would be easy! The goal is to end up with accurate information and the idea is that the more heads the better. Of course, with more heads, that means more egos. The real challenge is fighting your own ego when someone makes a change that is actually better :) D. Matt Innis 01:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Your fix

Governing councils and ancillary positions - why didn't I think of that? Ro Thorpe 00:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha, you saw how many time I didn't think of that! D. Matt Innis 00:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the good Dyscalculia edits

There's a ton of information inside the PDF file referenced in the article. It's one of the best I read. I may work on it some more later but I needed a rest. The brain is tired. My eyes are swollen from too much computer use and I need a break. Thanks again!Mary Ash 03:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it was fun. I saw the PDF and agree it is pretty involved. I wish I had the texts where she got the information, too. Daniel is a psychology editor, I think. He might have a lot of good stuff. D. Matt Innis 03:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A question

Matt, this is about the reviewing of requests for membership. When a request is put on "Hold" or is "Rejected", how long is it before they are completely expired and expunged from the queues? It seems as if that almost never happens. Milton Beychok 04:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

30 days for those on hold, 7 days for rejected ones. --Chris Key 05:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A different question

I have been looking at the special pages, and the page for the shortest articles gives these results [2] - basically all the same, thousands of pages each containing one letter or number. I have read the discussion here and here and I still can't work out what they are for! Do you know? Cheers! David Finn 07:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

These pages are how David Yamakuchi wants to store chemical properties for use in property tables. They are used by Template:PTofE, see Periodic Table of Elements. --Peter Schmitt 09:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, although I am not sure that the periodic table is where all the short articles are coming from. Take the example of carbon, if you click every link in the little box for carbon in the periodic table template all the links go to an article of some sort. To get to the short pages you have to go to the properties page of the article about carbon where you find a table, and it is clicking on the elements of the table that leads you to the short articles, like this one and this also. So the short pages are, from what I can see, repititions of the details already in the table, and are unlikely to be expanded. So I was just wondering what they were for. Cheers. David Finn 10:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
David, I did not analyze the coding of this template. But if you look at Periodic Table of Elements in edit mode then you find that it uses many of these pages. Anyway, as you can see from the talk pages, David Yamakuchi vehemently proposed to use such single data pages for this purpose, and he created many of them. (I do not know if he completed this job.) Some of us (including myself) opposed this idea. --Peter Schmitt 10:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that is a lot of articles. I have not followed the development of the periodic table since the early days, but it looks like it had some discussion and was thought out to some degree. From a constable perspective, an editor would have to look it over and give some guidance as to whether any of it was unnecessary and needed to be deleted. It should be documented somewhere so that we don't accidently delete something important that we won't know the effects of until it's too late. D. Matt Innis 11:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
They were for use in the property tables for the articles about each of the elements as well. For example, look at Chlorine and its edit page. There was indeed a lot of discussion about them. Milton Beychok 16:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
It not only needs discussion from and editorial point of view (opinions were not very positive on it), but also from a technical point of view (efficiency). --Peter Schmitt 12:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

About new user Brian Kelly - UKOLN

Matt, please look at my comment about that new user's name on Chris Key's talk page. Thanks. Milton Beychok 16:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have already asked him Milt. --Chris Key 16:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks guys. It seems that we already have a Brian Kelly, so he had to make another choice. We're working on getting him a better name. D. Matt Innis 18:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't mean to be a pest. But why "B Kelly" instead of "B. Kelly" ? Milton Beychok 21:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I am more surprised about seeing an even more ambiguous name apparently regarded as a solution for disambiguation. I would recommend to disambiguate user names (just like everything else) by way of parentheses, with UKOLN being a good choice in this case. --Daniel Mietchen 21:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, retaining the first name is preferable. But using a designation like UKOLN -- that may be valid for a limited time only -- is not a good choice. --Peter Schmitt 21:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
It was the name he picked. D. Matt Innis 22:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
But shooldn't a name -- the name with which he wants to be addressed -- be in the signature? --Peter Schmitt 22:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
What if it is already taken. Are you suggesting Brian K. I suppose that's a possibility. Maybe we would rather do that. D. Matt Innis 22:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Peter, using "the name with which (anyone) wants to be addressed" just opens the door to pseudonyms. Milton Beychok 23:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think pseudonyms or other additional identifiers would be fine if put in parentheses after the real name. --Daniel Mietchen 23:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Daniel, do you mean like: D. Matt Innis(Matt). D. Matt Innis 23:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Milt, I think you know that I was not talking of pseudonyms. But the use of an abbreviated name does not work. It is at least inconvenient. Should we write "Hello, B"? Or are we supposed to look at his user page first?. Perhaps "B Kelly (Brian)" would work. (Is this what you meant, Daniel.) But should another "Brian Kelly" register, then a new idea would be needed. (Only a generic solution like numbers would solve the problem completely.) --Peter Schmitt 23:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Brian Kelly is a very, very common name. Why not start numbering such members? Brian Kelly 1, Brian Kelly 2, etc. If we already have a Brian Kelly, then we could start with Brian Kelly 2.
Using UKOLN in parenthesis or in any other form strikes me as possibly being interpreted as promoting the UKOLN ... in other words, self promotion. Milton Beychok 23:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Numbers solve the problem in theory but not in practice - not everyone will find it easy to remember whether a particular comment had been made on the talk page of Brian Kelly 17, Brian Kelly 18, or perhaps Brian Kelly 42. Self-promotion could be a problem, but I am not sure it necessarily will: If Brian Kelly (Coca Cola) is editing the article Coke, then everyone will be warned, and if he goes on to edit Charles Dickens, it will most likely not be a case of self-promotion any more. But I haven't thought this through yet. --Daniel Mietchen 23:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
@Matt: If we were to have several users "D. Matt Innis", I would prefer to see the "D." expanded first, or some other identifier added. Re-using "Matt", which is already in the original user name, does not provide much disambiguation power. In connection with Milt's comment on Self-promotion, what about having users choose a neutral identifier from a list of basic words (like here), or possibly the title of an article that they particularly care about? In such a scheme, I could be Daniel Mietchen (Brain morphometry), and if that were already taken, I could opt for Daniel Mietchen (Surface-based morphometry). This would also be a bit more inviting in Recent Changes than names alone, and it would generally be more easy to remember than numbers. --Daniel Mietchen 00:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
(EC)The parentheses would be a precedent that we should think hard about. It might be part of the solution, but we need to be consistent about what we put in them. We need to allow enough variation that several identically named people can register. B. Kelly (Brian) probably doesn't leave enough variation. Currently, when registering, the software will not allow the creation of an application if the name is already in use. I believe it asks the user to try another one (Chris would know for sure). Whatever method we choose, we'd have to have a way to explain the options to them while they were registering. Surely there is a solution that doesn't involve numbers, but I guess that would be the most simple from a sign-up process. D. Matt Innis 00:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
@Daniel, basic words.. Why not just alphabet. Brian Kelly A, Brian Kelly B, etc.. Then we would call the Brian B, or Brian BL if there were enough. D. Matt Innis 00:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Persnally, I would prefer a short disambiguation. Letters seem to be a good possibility (the second gets A, etc., unless middle name or a variant of the name can be used) Of course, Daniel's argument (easy to confuse, may still hold). Article names could be interpreted as "owning" that article. If a "long" disambiguation is wanted, then perhaps place of origin could be used. --Peter Schmitt 00:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I would be agreeable with either letters or numbers. How about asking Chris Key for his input? Milton Beychok 01:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Matt: Has there been a decision or resolution on how to handle B Kelly's user name? Milton Beychok 02:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey Milt, Nope. I put it on the constable mailing list and received no response. Hopefully, we can take this discussion to a MC meeting once they get started. We need a decision once and for all. D. Matt Innis 02:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User account for Deepak Mahaan

Matt, I reconstructed his user bio (as I had done when his user page was created) by using asterisks instead of his bullets so as to have a listing of his accomplishments rather than a single run-on paragraph that was most difficult to read. I also reconstructed his categories as you asked me to do.

But just so I know in the future, why was a "renaming" needed? I don't understand why the the "move" wasn't sufficient or how renaming differs from moving. Milton Beychok 21:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Care to comment?

This discussion Talk:Memory_of_water#Digital_biology needs more opinions. Sandy Harris 23:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Final approval of Explosives due tomorrow

Matt, just a gentle reminder for either you or Chris. Milton Beychok 02:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Milt. It looks like it is on track for a single editor approval tomorrow! D. Matt Innis 03:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from TJ, but . . .

My thanks to the constables who set me up so quickly, but there is a little over-enthusiasm involved. I received two accounts, one as "T.[space]J. Frazier" and the other as "T.[no space]J. Frazier". After looking at the two constructions in several type-styles, I decided that the space was indeed functional, so I'm keeping (and busily using) that one. Please feel free to vanish the other one; it is unconfirmed (never logged into). As a check, the active account already has half-a-dozen minor edits, the kind of little stuff I usually do. tj --T. J. Frazier 01:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi TJ, We noticed that, too! I've already deleted the T.J. account and removed the user pages as I noticed that you were using T. J. account. Hope you have fun! D. Matt Innis 04:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


Couple questions really. In the search box (top of page) when I type what I want there are no suggestions based on what is available. On some sites when you start typing in the search box it starts giving you suggestions, like if I type Bar it might open a small box next to the search with suggestions like Barack Obama and Bart Simpson. I find that quite helpful as you know before you finish typing if you are heading for a red link. Can we have that?

Been looking at an approved article, Guglielmo Marconi, and the main article has no references, which are divided between the external links and bibliography section. While I understand the reasoning behind this, it means that someone wishing to research further a particular aspect of the article has no direct link to supporting material. The links, while annotated, do not enable the reader to quickly find information on a given aspect of the article, more there just to support the article as a whole. Is there a policy about this?

And finally, do you have an opinion on this question (the link is to Howards reply, the question preceeds it) about citing our experts? Cheers. David Finn 07:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ad 1: Please try it with "Bar" — works fine for me (using the Monobook skin). It's just that we do not have very many articles yet, so the feature is not as helpful as it could be. --Daniel Mietchen 12:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
If it were that simple I wouldn't have had to ask! But you are correct, I was using a different skin which doesn't support the extra search box functionality - which brings up another question, why don't all the skins behave in roughly the same way? I like the search box but I don't like the monobook skin - I was using the default skin which doesn't support it. So, can we have the search box functionality of the monobook skin in the default skin? I think, especially because it is the default, it would be useful to newcomers. And thanks for the reply! David Finn 19:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi David, I see that you've received an answer on your first question which fosters another that I am not equipped to answer. However, we do have some capable programmers here (Daniel being one) that I think are able to make those changes programmatically. Our experience has been that changing skins has satisfied some while upsetting others, so we've decided that decisions need to be made in much the same way articles are written - by collaborating with others that might have different perspectives. Being bold certainly gets the attention and should trigger discussion and cooperation to make it better. Hopefully, the new charter has set up the Management Council where these decisions can be made after reasonable consideration of all the details. Your suggestions belong somewhere in that process - so do keep bringing them up.

The same goes for Howard's response to your observation and question concerning expertise. The obvious (and original idea) was that if three experts approved an article, then it would be much more likely to be accurate and unbiased and therefore considered a good reference source. Of course, that remains up to those who actually use our materials. As you've noted, the approved version is locked, but every other version can be altered and impossible to tell who authored what text. The only thing we can tell is that an approved article does have an expert's endorsement (whether he/she wrote it or not). This means that only approved articles can really be endorsed by Citizendium. The only other way we have been able to consider an expert's opinion is to allow them to write a 'signed article' as a subpage. It would be up to the reader to decide whether they want to believe that writer's version based on their advertised credentials. I'm sure that we might be able to figure out a way to cite our experts, even if it is with a link to their user page, but it needs to be thought through carefully, because unless the article is approved, any author can come along and change that experts words without the expert knowing and might damage that expert's reputation.

Keep those thoughts coming and take part in these very important discussions on the fora and on the Councils over the next few months and years. D. Matt Innis 23:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


Hey Matt, if you have a moment (or two), can you look at some of the discussion we're having in the homeopathy article. I made a series of recommended improvements, but Howard and I are having a challenging time getting along (and more important, we're not developing consensus). I find that he mispresents my recommendations and comments and that he makes up exaggerated statements from me as though I actually said (or even suggested) them. I had taken a rest from CZ for many months and decided to try to help the article. I initially thought that I would comment in the Talk section only and try to simply allow others to do the editing. I assume good faith, but I just do not see it. Several editors at the homeopathy just have strong antagonism to homeopathy, and they want the article to represent their viewpoint. I don't have a problem with having their viewpoint represented, but I want the article to also respond to their viewpoint.

As it turns out, I'm going out of the country on Wednesday for a week and will probably not do much editing here...but I will try to watch and participate a bit. Still, it seems that a referee is needed...or perhaps, I may just choose to not participate and to work to not turn this Draft into an article. Dana Ullman 03:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Matt, but I consider Mr. Ullman to more than equally misrepresent, changes subjects, etc. I don't see good faith either. Bluntly, it is impossible to create consensus when two sides consider the others to be idiots. At best, it can be reasonable to state what homeopaths believe, and the biological science objections to those beliefs.
It is fair to say, I believe,that there is strong antagonism to homeopathy from quite a few participants in the article, including Health Sciences Editors as well as Authors. Mr. Ullman seems to consider "respond to their viewpoint" being a statement that homeopathy works. I do not presume to tell homeopaths how they believe their remedies work, but I strongly object to inaccurate characterizations of conventional drugs, characterizations that, for example, presume to tell drugs designed using such principles as receptor structure-activity relationships, "might" be actually working by the principle of similars. Equally, using appeals to immunologic authority over a century out of date is also not a plausible or nonconfrontational approach. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Dana - you say you are going out of town for a while and won't be able to do much editing on Citizendium, but a quick look at your contributions might indicate that few would find a lack of participation from you unusual. That quick look also shows that in several years of being a Citizen you have only ever edited the article on Homeopathy, apart from when you reverted Citizendium's founder over at the Charles Darwin article - a reversion, I might add, that was over homeopathy.
Dana - the encyclopedia is about more than one article. Your contributions and user page give the impression of someone who is advocating homeopathy. Your goal appears not to be the general improvement of Citizendium but the advocacy of homeopathy, which also seems to be your profession.
Dana - I would strongly encourage you to broaden your Citizendium experience to include topics other than homeopathy. There are many opportunities to contribute to this encyclopedia without restricting those to advocating your profession. David Finn 08:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I do feel like we need to take the high road on this issue and learn a bit from Rational Wiki's page on homeopathy. (Chunbum Park 09:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC))
Taking the high road and learning from their page are certainly not mutually exclusive, but I do think they go a bit far. I'm not sure the licensing allows us to use the wonderful XKCD cartoon, but we should definitely link to it. Sandy Harris 10:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I've been watching the conversation on Talk:Homeopathy and find it fascinating, yet unsurprisingly unproductive to date. I am somewhat concerned that some of the discussion skirts the professionalism policy and appears to be an attempt to impugn the character of our editors and authors. As a Healing Arts editor, I won't intervene as a constable on the page and will limit myself to my area of expertise concerning the alternative medicine practice part of the article. I leave the science to the Biologists and Health Science editors.

I don't see a problem with Dana only working on Homeopathy related articles, as a matter of fact, I consider this essential to Citizendium that is different than Wikipedia. Experts don't usually have the time to write about subjects that they have little interest, so I would hope Dana feels comfortable just keeping us informed about the subjects that he has editorship over.

Having said all that, it is my experience that once people finish with name-calling and chest pounding, there is usually some small bit of meat that we might be able to use in the article. In this case, I see a tidbit that Dana mentioned that Homeopaths do more than use materials diluted beyond Avogadro's number, which is enlightening and probably something that even Howard can agree belong in an encyclopedia article.

I'll keep watching.

D. Matt Innis 12:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I'll leave it to the experts to decide where the line is drawn. David Finn 11:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Final draft of the CZ charter


I read the final draft of the CZ charter and want it to detail the special rights/powers of an editor over others (it doesn't seem to do so at the moment). I couldn't log in there, so please include that in the draft.
I'd also like to change my name to just, "Ramaanand", so can you help me?
Thank you,
Ramanand Jhingade 17:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Corrected votes total

Hi Matt, this would also mean to change the 87.8% to 90.3%. --Daniel Mietchen 13:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Another good catch, thanks Daniel! D. Matt Innis 13:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Added back bio

You now know that I am retired Republican Women president, retired journalist, married to a Vietnam war draftee yadda yadda yadda... Thanks!Mary Ash 01:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, now that I know you're a republican, that changes everything!!! :D D. Matt Innis 01:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

My response to Mr. Finn: As Ann Landers would say MYOB. The charter now states a user page is the sole responsibility of the user. That is part of the new charter. I am not sure why you have taken on the job of "net police" at CZ as you are not an admin or any other related position. You are a regular citizen just like me. FYI I am a strong believer in privacy and placing so much personal information on one Internet page is something I have never, ever done during my 15+ years of being on the Internet except at CZ. I'd be more than happy to share my resume with any established Citizen including you, if you have a need to know. The new charter is in place so I used the opportunity to edit my user page as I saw fit. Finally, at the request of Constable D. Matt Innis I have returned my bio until the final details are finished. As for now, the new charter allows a user to determine what's on their page.Mary Ash 15:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that is a perfectly reasonable response. Thanks again for adding your bio. D. Matt Innis 15:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
You do? So you think that I am acting like a member of the "net police" who should "Mind My Own Business"? Do elaborate. David Finn 07:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll take that as a yes. David Finn 05:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
David, I don't know what has gotten into Matt ... but I want you to know that I don't regard you as the "net police" nor do I think you should be told to mind your own business. You did nothing wrong at all and you did not deserve being labeled as the "net police" and the rant on your Talk page. Milton Beychok 06:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for the vote of confidence Milton. Looking at the history it might be that this thread was just too far up the page for Matt to notice since yesterday. I will continue to wait for a reply however since if what Mary has said is the opinion of the community then I have misunderstood my place in that community. From my perspective, I asked Mary (quite pleasantly, I thought) if she was planning to restore her biography - she could have said "No" or even "Yes" but instead I find my supposed intentions discussed on the forums. I find that a little disheartening, so at this point it is quite important for me to establish what Matt means when he considers Marys allegations as reasonable. David Finn 06:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You may have noticed from the forum thread that I agree with Milt. Pointing out (in a friendly way) something that is (supposed to be) wrong is not acting as "net police" but part of the cooperation needed for CZ to work. --Peter Schmitt 10:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
The correct procedure would have notifying a Constable of a potential infraction. It is the job of the Constable to take care of such matters. If every Citizen is allowed to "police" or correct other user pages mayhem could ensue. This is not the only time David Finn is offered to "correct" me and I have politely responded to his "corrections". In actuality, I probably have a bit more CZ membership time than he does, but I do not go around offering "help" unless asked. I posted this to Peter's page. Thanks!Mary Ash 14:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) David, I did miss this, sorry for the delay.

Well, I have to admit, I didn't know what MYOB meant and I guess I could have used the "noacronyms" template on that and it might have saved some trouble. Notice I said "reasonable", not "wonderful." If you're asking me to act on something as a constable, I don't have any documented reason to act against either of you for talking to each other professionally. #1) Mary's bio was fine. #2) David's request was fine. #3) Mary's response was fine. #4) It doesn't matter what I think about what any of you said as long as it follows professional guidelines.

Lord knows we've all said things that we meant to be harsh and for good reason. I assume Mary knows why she said what she said and I don't need either of you to justify what either of you said. Everyone pays their own way. Personally, I like both of you, so I wouldn't have said what either of you said to each other, but that is just me being me, not a constable.

Milt, nothing new has gotten into me. Same ole' me. I still appeciate all your work and all your efforts. I suppose you're just seeing me from a different perspective.

Peter, I agree that's how it should work.

Mary, watch out for that tendency to "kick the dog".

David, tread carefully on other peoples talk pages, even if your intentions are for the good of the project. That is why we only let constables change user pages in rare cases. Not because you were wrong, but because requests like that do tend to be taken personally. D. Matt Innis 16:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Finished a stub about Turkish Van cats

Just finished a stub about Turkish Van cats. The article has another title as I messed the first one up. Could you please remove the article titled Turkish Van the correct article title is Turkish Van and is in place. See: [[3]] Thanks again!Mary Ash 02:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick!
Okay, ready to learn something new? If you want something that you messed up on deleted, copy and paste this on the article page <noinclude>{{speedydelete|REASON|~~~~}}</noinclude>. Don't forget to fill in the reason! Go ahead, then I'll delete it. D. Matt Innis 02:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Done and thanks! I'll be saving that tidbit for later use. Mary Ash 02:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
There you go! Who says you can't teach a cat new tricks!! D. Matt Innis 03:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
It helps to have a good teacher like you. Thanks again! BTW I hope my being a Republican is a good thing. I was thinking about writing an article about the Tea Party but I don't know how that would fly here. I am not a Tea Party member but I do believe in a lot of the ideas they are trying to bring back to America. Mary Ash 15:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure being republican means something to someone, but it doesn't matter to me. I can't believe we don't have an article on the Tea Party - are you sure we don't? If not, start one! Just keep it neutral :) - like a reporter. D. Matt Innis 15:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Of course! I was a governmental affairs reporter which meant I covered all things political whether it be conservative or liberal. My job as a reporter, and as a CZ contributor, is present information in an unbiased fashion. Mary Ash 16:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party Movement. Howard C. Berkowitz 07:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


Hello D., it's a pleasure to meet you; Bloomington is a great town and I've always enjoyed my visits there. The older and crotchetier I get, the less sure I am that I could live in a college town, but it's beautiful nonetheless. And the campus blows IUPUI out of the water. Justin Anthony Knapp 04:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I confirmed account for K. Ramesh Babu

Matt, I hope you don't mind that I confirmed an account for K. Ramesh Babu. You had placed his request on hold and asked him to furnish more identity information. However, when I checked the website he had already furnished, I found his name and the email address he had given us. The page I found is here. On that basis, I went ahead and confirmed his account. Milton Beychok 21:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent Milt, I missed that! Thanks. Anytime you see something like that, just go ahead and do it like you did. I'll cover your back, you cover mine! (I guess that is almost a pun considering my profession.)D. Matt Innis 00:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Would like confirmation

Matt, I made two nominations for Managing Editor last evening but they are not yet listed. Would you please confirm that my nominations were received. Thanks, Milton Beychok 14:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Got them. D. Matt Innis 16:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party archives

Matt, I think the current Talk:Tea Party should also be move to an archive. --Peter Schmitt 01:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, missed that one! Where do you think it should go? D. Matt Innis 01:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
If anywhere, that should go to the active Talk: Tea Party movement. It contains most of the early discussion of why the articles should be merged, and asks specific questions about text that is being moved. I will, after dinner and headache relief, cut and paste the other subject-related questions.
In other words, under all of the capitalization [expletive deleted], there is a content-related discussion. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if there is any medical literature on this, but sometimes headaches are well-deserved. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

stuff at the four-colour page

You might take a Kop's look at the bottom of: Hayford Peirce 01:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Since I've tried to participate here, my articles and contributions have been criticized incessantly by Peter Schmitt who has consistently followed a policy of claiming mistakes, making negative comments, or sometimes damming my additions with faint praise. He termed my work "average". My well-written well-referenced article with excellent diagrams was accused of having "minor errors" (not the obvious France-Austria border error which emerged later) but exactly what these minor errors were -- these were never specified or fixed. Schmitt termed it a "magazine article" implying that it wasn't worthy of being in an encyclopedia. You've let these negative comments STICK. You didn't erase them. You're removed my attempt to respond to one of the criticisms. Clearly, you've decided to side with one party (Schmitt) against me. So why should I or anybody participate here? I urge Citizendium to find a fair way of dealing with the inevitable disputes. Merely having a so-called "constable" side with one of the parties won't resolve problems in the long term, and you'll find your eating your lunch all by yourself.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 03:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Every Citizen has to bear criticism by fellow Citizens. Criticism is not "negative" but a necessary means to improvement.
In the beginning you followed what you called "thicket" strategy, a strategy that is not consistent with general CZ policy and was opposed by others, too.
As for the four-colour theorem: I did not call your work "average", but wrote that it meets what an average user will expect -- not at all a negative comment. Moreover, making comparisons with a magazine article is a reference to stylistic issues and does not disqualify its content.
--Peter Schmitt 08:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
One more remark: Matt acting as a Constable was not "siding" with me in any dispute between us (if there is one -- I do not see it as a "dispute"). He only judged the formulations you used as not appropriate. (I do not try to comment his decision.) --Peter Schmitt 10:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Thomas. Please be aware that this is the first day that I ever saw any of your work. In fact, I haven't really seen any of your work, only the talk page of one article of your work. My job is to step in when behavior drops below the threshold of acceptable, no matter who is the first to go there. You just happened to be the one that went there first. I didn't side with anyone, you went to the other side. Had you stayed on this side of that threshold, you'd be on my side and I could defend you.
I am sure that there is a history for both of you that precedes any of the discussion on that page - probably some that lingers from the way each of us was treated at wikipedia (we all left there for one reason or another). We all get a little trigger happy once we've experienced aggressive behavior. Check out the Talk:Chiropractic page if you want to see the criticism I endured from editors. This may or may not be the case here. Peter may also be used to people taking his advice in stride and didn't even consider that you would be protective of your work, maybe not, but ultimately, I cannot consider those perfectly acceptable reasons when I try to keep the peace around here. As I tried to point out to you, do not consider my email a warning, but informational not only for you, but for others watching. I hoped that you would take it in the vein that it was meant. After all, this is not wikipedia; we respect and appreciate the advice of experts and tend to give it more credence. We're not perfect, but we've all agreed that we're not going down that road, whether we eat our lunch alone or not.
I am sure that Peter will respond to you differently now that he knows how you feel, but he is still responsible for the content that shows up in the mathematics workgroup. If he upsets you, contact a constable. If you disagree with his content, contact another mathematics editor. If you want to be a mathematics editor, apply to personnel.
D. Matt Innis 12:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
And this sort of balanced, non-defensive, non-judgemental response is why we all respect Matt so much. Excellent, as usual. Aleta Curry 23:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

About CZ:Nomination page

Matt, the list of nominees on the nomination page indicates the number of seats on the EC for Editors as 4 (at the top of the list) and Authors as 3 (at the top of the list).

However, there is no number at top of the list for the MC. Should it not have 3 at the top? That would help Citizens to know that we are going to elect 3 of them.

I know the text above the lists has that info, but many people may not read that section. Milton Beychok 18:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't have 3. It should have 5 however. I'll add it. --Chris Key 19:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
But, Chris, the text says that we are only initially electing 3 to serve shortened terms ???? Milton Beychok 20:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
No, it says we are electing 5 members and of them 3 will serve a shortened term. --Chris Key 20:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
You're right, Chris. Guess I can't win them all. Milton Beychok 20:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathy Lede

Matt, I appreciate your contributions here [4], but what you've written is not an accurate description of a "drug proving." I had thought that what I had written was short and sweet. Because drug provings in homeopathy determine the specific indications for each homeopathic medicine, THIS information seems both basic and important. These experiments for the BASIS for homeopathic practice, and as such, it has an important place in the lede. I would rather if you considered un-doing what you've done, unless you can express a rationale for something else. In any case, what you wrote isn't accurate. Dana Ullman 01:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure Dana, let's take a look. Here is your formulation:

  • Two basic ideas in homeopathy are the principle of similars, sometimes stated as "like cures like", and the principle of infinitisimals, the idea that remedies become more potent as they undergo a specific pharmacological process called potentization, which includes dilution of 1:10, 1:100, or 1:50,000, with vigorous shaking in-between each dilution.
  • The basis for determining the indications for usage of a homeopathic medicine are derived from experiments in toxicology called drug provings— single- or double-blind studies using small doses of substances to healthy volunteers on a daily basis until symptoms appear. The symptoms are carefully noted and catalogued in books and expert system software programs. Once it is determined what a substances causes in overdose, homeopaths claim that this substance can be used in homeopathic doses to treat sick people who experience similar symptoms.

And here is mine:

  • Two basic ideas in homeopathy are the principle of similars, sometimes stated as "like cures like", and the principle of infinitisimals, the idea that remedies become more potent as they undergo a specific process called potentization, which includes serial dilution of the remedies with vigorous shaking in-between each dilution. Provings determine the indications for usage by administering small doses of substances to healthy volunteers and recording their symptoms.

It seems to me that they are saying the same thing save technical jargon and superfluous and peacock wording. We have to keep it as succinct as possible, so let me know which part is inaccurate and I'll be glad to reconsider. D. Matt Innis 02:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparition Photo

I awake this morning to find this photo removed from the apparition article I completed yesterday. I did not realize authors could remove at whim photos they did not approve of. I am not amused. Below is the talk page section for the Marian apparition article. See talk page article: [[5]] Mary Ash 15:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Mary, may I suggest this sort of thing is more appropriate in an email to than on one Constable's user page? Matt is not the only Constable and indeed has indicated he may be leaving the position.
Constables, in any case, can't act on content issues, merely on behavior. I haven't looked at the workgroups to which you've assigned the article, but a psychology, religion, anthropology, or sociology editor might be appropriate as an expert.
It might be very useful, when dealing with more controversial subjects, to be in communication with an editor even before posting. Like it or not, the general mood here opposes the paranormal or transpersonal, and you really have to expect pushback if you post in such areas. Be ready for it. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Delete and Tag Removal

I'm sorry to keep bothering you but you are the only Constable that I know of. This morning I placed a speedy delete tag on the Marian Apparitions article based on inappropriate and inflammatory. The tag was removed by Hayord. I have returned the tag. What is the process concerning the speedy delete process and tag removal. I assumed a Constable would take care of the matter not Hayford. Thanks for your help!Mary Ash 17:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

While Matt may be the only constable you know, he is not the only constable. Again, I recommend you read the procedures, or believe me when I say the correct way to complain is with an email to User talk pages may not be seen by a single constable, and they are not appropriate places to bring up complaints about Citizens. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
No complaints just stating facts. And the page history facts state Hayford removed the tag. Tag removal is considered very bad manners in most wikis.Mary Ash 17:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Not really - on Wikipedia, one of the larger Wiki-style efforts, the speedy-delete tag may be removed by anyone who contests the deletion. David Finn 18:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
CZ policy is as Howard has stated above. There are several reasons why it is policy: first, it is a confidential communication asking the constabulary to investigate a matter. It is not appropriate to put your complaints in public, either here, or on the Forum. Secondly, it is addressed to the Constabulary and not to an individual-- which means that it is official and also likely to be acted on more quickly. If you don't follow the correct procedures -- which are mostly good policies -- other Citizens are likely to get angry. This has already happened, in fact. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I would listen very carefully to any interpretation of policy on which Martin and I agree. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Well there has been plenty of public mudslinging concerning me and my name and nothing has been done. Yes, I am angry as almost every article I have written here has been an uphill battle. And no I did not realize I was not allowed to contact a Constable on a Constable's talk page. In the future, I will email the complaint. Repeated tag removal without Constable review is most likely against CZ policy as this removes the Constable's ability to read and review requests. Finally, the Citizendium Deletion policy clearly states any author or editor can place a tag on an article.Mary Ash 19:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, everyone, make your complaints to and give us time to react. Everyone here, except a few, have day jobs and sleep at night. It's not how fast we work, it's how fair we play. Once you've made you're complaint, move on to something else and Chris or I will get back to you as soon as we've decided how best to handle each situation. Most importantly, please be patient and tolerant with each other. D. Matt Innis 22:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

About the nominations page

Hi, Matt: Is there some reason way many of the "declines" are not colored orange as most of the "declines" are? Or are they still in the process of being colored? Milton Beychok 17:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Milt, Chris has been working on that and I just now saw it before I noticed that I had discussions on my talk page (I'm using 'modern' as my skin and I'm thinking it doesn't warn me that I have messages. I noticed one of the statement boxest looks strange. I'll take another look and let you know. D. Matt Innis 21:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking Chris was going blind and missed the bottom few! I missed a couple myself the first time through. I've fixed them though. D. Matt Innis 21:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Requesting Constable Assistance

Requesting Constable Assistance concerning the Marian Apparitions article. See: Thanks! Mary Ash 17:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No longer needed as Chris reviewed the Marian Apparitions page and has deemed it appropriate and non-inflammatory.Mary Ash 19:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
No I haven't, but the issue has been dealt with. See comments on talk page and forums. --Chris Key 20:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything that Chris has said and done today. D. Matt Innis 22:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Moves needed - sorry!

Do I direct this to you?

Need to move a few Christianity stubs and their associated clusters. Awfully sorry to cause work.

Can you have a look at [6] at your conveniece, and if you agree that I have interpreted the consensus correctly, the articles are.

Immaculate Conception

Virgin Birth


Lord's Prayer

All need to be moved to a cluster beginning with 'The', (and the present ones deleted? redirected? and Annunciation needs to be disambiguated, but I can do that.)

Aleta Curry 23:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a matter for the EC; we don't have a naming convention for the use of the definite article in article names, but an ad hoc policy is a recipe for disaster. It should also be "The American Civil War," "The Republican Party," "The Declaration of Independence," etc., etc., ad infinitum. I'd like to see democratic due process on this. Russell D. Jones 00:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, let me think out loud here. Does a request for due process trump an ad hoc forum discussion... hmmm. Well, another ad hoc decision on the forum agreed that we keep using current policy as long as it does not conflict with the charter... So, I have to ask myself, "does moving these articles conflict with the charter?" Not particularly, I don't think, but I also get the gut feeling that we might have to move them back... Do we want to do that? I don't think so... So let me ask Aleta, is this something that needs to be done now or are you fine with waiting until the EC gets to take this up? D. Matt Innis 00:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I tend to think that current policy favours "The" (and with reason), but I also think that moving these pages is not urgent. By the way, Aleta could do the move herself ... :-) --Peter Schmitt 00:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, at least everyone seems to agree that there should be a "The"! D. Matt Innis 01:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Requesting updating approved version of Ammonia production

Matt, in the Draft version of the Approved article, I just replaced the photo in the lede section with a much better one. Would you please also replace it in the Approved version? I don't think that simply replacing a photo necessitates going through the full re-approval process.

All that needs to be done is to replace the template {{Image|Terra Nitrogen Plant.jpg|right|250px|Terra Nitrogen Plant in Verdigris, Oklahoma that produces ammonia and ammonia derived fertilizers}} with this template {{Image|Burrup Fertilizers' plant.jpg|right|350px|Burrup Fertilizers' plant in Western Australia that can produce 760,000 tonnes of liquid ammonia per year}} . Thanks, Milton Beychok 06:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing it, Matt. Milton Beychok 19:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
No problem, Milt. I'm sure everyone knows you're the expert on that subject! If Howard has a problem, he'll let us know. D. Matt Innis 19:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Re Homepathy/Draft version I mentioned on the Talk page

Matt, don't know how to find "version number", but the Homeopathy/Draft revision I referred to comes up at Anthony.Sebastian 02:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Some speedy deletion requests

Matt, I tagged two image files for speedydeletion 2-3 days ago. They are:

Both of those two files are listed in Category:Speedy Deletion Requests but they have not been acted upon as yet. I know you are busy with election stuff, but would you please find time to delete the two files?

I have now created correct versions of the two files in question. Milton Beychok 22:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Matt. Milton Beychok 02:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
You are quite welcome, Milt! D. Matt Innis 02:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Did not receive my copy of ballot votes for EC Authors

Matt: I submitted all 5 ballots and received my copies of only 4 of them. I did not receive my copy of the EC Authors ballot. Do we have the same problem that we had with one of the nomination forms? Milton Beychok 06:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Have not received ANY ballots

Matt I am sorry but I have not received any ballots. I checked both my mailboxes and nothing has arrived. Should I have received ballots or not? ThanksMary Ash 18:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Mary, there are no votes from you. Did you use the Citizendium email system? D. Matt Innis 19:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Mary, you won't receive a ballot in your email, if that is what you are thinking. You have to go here and follow the links to the ballot pages and then email us from each page. If you want it to send you a copy of who you voted for, check the box at the bottom of the email edit box. Let me know if you have trouble. D. Matt Innis 19:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Matt. I'll try to figure it out...if not you'll be hearing from me...Mary Ash 19:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I voted and I hope I did it right. Please let me know if I didn't. Thanks so much.Mary Ash 20:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I see them. You're done! D. Matt Innis 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's talk turkey!

Hi, Matt, would you take a look at the bottom of the turkey page at: The only thing to think about is what to do with the Talk on that particular page. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 19:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hayford, read the exchange between Peter Schmitt and I at the bottom of my talk page at User talk:Milton Beychok in the section titled as "Archive box". Milton Beychok 19:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks pretty messy :/ Once everyone knows what they want, let me know which pages to delete so that you can move others to those pages. Looks like a pretty tangled web right now. Try to keep from getting too frustrated and work together cleaning it up. I'm sure it is going to work out in the end, just think it through. D. Matt Innis 20:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
If four five people (Mary, Hayford, Howard, Aleta, I) want to write about "turkey" at the same time, but draw into different directions, then the poor bird will be quartered. I suggest to make a break, get together and make a plan first.
I don't think we had an "exchange", Milt. --Peter Schmitt 21:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Cough, cough - that's 'five' persons! You do realise that I'm never gonna let you live that one down - but your point is well taken. On the other hand, we can just continue and see what develops, then clean up what's left/what we all agree is good. I've no objection at all to combining/deleting. However y'all want to work it.... Aleta Curry 22:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Got me, Aleta! But who says that mathematicians can count? Mmh, I think I only later inserted myself (and I didn't want to write about it) ... --Peter Schmitt 22:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm chicken to get into another move/naming affair, and will duck it. There's no need to crow; I may or may not contribute to this article once it's in a new place. Some of my worst kitchen disasters involved roast turkey and it's something I tend to leave to others. I have no baggage on this; perhaps I emulate the vultures that fly coach only with carrion. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) When I *did* write, I wrote all on one page and then split it up into different sections and then turned the long sections into pages. I guess I wrote first, and then broke it up. Whoever is writing, just keep writing. Things will start to make sense when you get enough to do something with. We can move things wherever you want later. D. Matt Innis 23:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree, Matt. Now, I'm fairly fast to split off subarticles. Doing Related Articles first does help. Nevertheless, I question why some Citizens feel an urgency to rename or move articles to which they are not contributing content and are clearly being actively edited. Truly, this is not meant as an attack — I simply don't understand why it's seen as conducive to writing. There have been many occasions when I've been the one that realized the title is wrong.
Go ahead and edit my content; it's fair game when in mainspace. Renaming arguments and unilateral moves, much less merges, can make it very hard to work on content. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand. The trick to writing with others is not to get too emotionally tied to what you've written or done. If someone moves the article, big deal. If someone wants to move what you just wrote to a new section on dingbats, sure why not. If you're writing, just keep writing. There is a lot about turkeys that does not belong in a food article. Just keep writing. I don't know anything about naming things. I let others decide that. I just keep writing. And thank goodness there is someone there to check my spellin' and my gramor. :) D. Matt Innis 00:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't get emotional about arguing content. I do get emotional when I can't immediately find what I've written, discussion mechanisms are broken, and I'm getting arguments to go retitle references in other articles. Matt, respectfully, you don't seem to understand the havoc an unexpected move, especially a nonstandard move, can cause. For most of the nonstandard moves I remember recently, there could have been a much less intrusive way to get the equivalent result, but there was little or no discussion. This is far more impactful than a 50 word deletion. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Howard, if you have a complaint about a user, use the constable mailbox and I will evaluate its merit and take the appropriate action. Hayford started this thread. I didn't realize that you wanted me to take action against someone. D. Matt Innis 12:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't directed against an individual, and no action is required except for people, including yourself, to realize that moves/renames/archiving can have subtle and disruptive effects. That said, we don't have complete mechanisms for handling certain problems now, although I have thoughts on the matter probably best brought to the EC.
Several different incidents come to mind regarding moves. I find it ironic that delete, which can easily be restored, is privileged, but move is not. It's one thing when someone moves work on which they are the only contributor, but it is a "big deal" when other moves are not agreed-to and coordinated. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, good news. I think everyone realizes the impact of these decisions, including me. D. Matt Innis 13:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Howard's MC statement

Howard's statement for Management Council is not accessible on the Nomination page - it's linking to his EC statement when he does have an MC one here unless it's been withdrawn. Thanks. John Stephenson 14:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sakes. Thanks, John. I fixed it. D. Matt Innis 15:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Please investigate

I'm not sure if Aleta and Peter are discussing my turkey factoids as the article has morphed so many times. If they are, then to be accused of plagiarism is flat out wrong. This is the talk page statement I left:

Factoids [edit]

The "factoids" were copied from one or two websites. They cannot be considered as reliable "facts" without further research. --Peter Schmitt 23:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've moved them temporarily, you may already have noticed, if not, please see above. Aleta Curry 00:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. The facts were researched and written by me. There is no plagiarism involved and I am sorry you feel that I would commit such a serious sin of poor writing.Mary Ash 16:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


Note: The web sites involved were from PBS and the turkey council. I would consider them reliable sources.Mary Ash 16:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, first, this is a content issue so constables can't step in unless there is a behavior issue. Calling someone a plagiarist could be considered such, but the only saying that is you. Doubting the reliability of a source is not the same thing as calling the person that used the source a plagiarist, plus, you have referenced the material. The question, then becomes one of reliability of sources which comes back to a content issue, which is out of my purview as a constable. If I were a collaborator, I'd try to accommodate my colleagues' request. I would look into PBS and the turkey council to see where they get their information. I think that is all that Peter and Aleta are asking. I wonder where that would be? D. Matt Innis 18:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I *think* that the Minnesota Turkey Board can *probably* be considered a reliable source (although, of course, it might well simply be a website created by Farmer Jones, who owns a turkey farm on a vacant lot in Minneapolis). In one of the Julia Child cookbooks, she discusses hard-boiling eggs at great length -- and ends up telling us what, as I recall, "the Georgia Egg Board" concluded after many tests: do thus and such and you will have a perfect hard-boiled egg. That sounded authoritative enough to me, and I venture to say that the Minnesota Turkey Board probably falls into that category. As for PBS -- I'm less sure. *I* might appear on a PBS show and make some hare-brained statement -- would *that* be authoritative? I don't think so. In any case, I don't think that a list, say, of ten items that appear on some website should be copied verbatim here into CZ. They can certainly be *listed*, but the text with the ten items has to be paraphrased. And, of course, the *source* of those ten items should be considered. Hayford Peirce 18:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. D. Matt Innis 18:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The sources I cited were the Univ. of Illinois and the turkey board. On second reading it seems they do not approve of the sources listed, although I don't know why a university level source would be discounted. The implication I read was "copied" from several web sites. I did not copy any text but I did use the web sites as research and wrote the copy using my own words. That is not plagiarism by any means and I did use recognized sources for my research.Mary Ash 21:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
List of sources:
  • National Turkey Board
  • Minnesota Turkey Board
  • University of Illinois
  • (Alton Brown) who is a Food Network chef and food expertMary Ash 21:55, 17 October 20

I'm glad no-one is accusing you of plagiarism, you'd have a good defense! The reliability of sources is a content issue that varies depending on the workgroup and editors and therefore is for you guys to decide. Just state your case and see what others think. D. Matt Innis 23:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

While you are on the subject, why not investigate the Recipes tab, where all the content has been copy/pasted from other websites. The bit where it says Published Originally By S. O. Beeton in 24 Monthly Parts 1859-1861. First Published in a Bound Edition 1861. The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Book of Household Management, by Mrs. Isabella Beeton This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at[8] E-text prepared by Jonathan Ingram, Sandra Brown, and Project Gutenberg Distributed Proofreaders is a bit of a giveaway, although I am not sure the others were quite as free as this one. David Finn 23:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The part where it says The recipe provided above is copyright ABC. might also be a worry, I don't know enough about copyright to say. David Finn 23:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm certainly not a copyright expert, but the Project Gutenberg license is at the bottom of the page of the cited source. It seems to give permission for just about everything, but do look at it and make sure. The copy/paste surely could use some formatting help, but that is content. ;-) I looked at the Canadian source and it's not a total copy/paste and does cite the source, though I haven't looked into the licensing. Recipes would be hard to rewrite without changing the taste, I'm sure. I'll still leave it up to the Food writers to make that determination. Let me know if you see something, or make the necessary changes yourself. If it becomes a problem, let me know. D. Matt Innis 23:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The ingredients in a recipe are NOT copyrighted and cannot be. Anyone can open a Julia Child book and copy out any of the recipes' ingredients and then use them in their own recipe. BUT, they MUST rewrite the instructions for USING those ingredients. This is absolutely clear, and this is what I have done with all the recipes from various notable sources that I have put into CZ articles so far. Hayford Peirce 23:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

((unindent))The historic recipes were listed as they are in the Public Domain in the United States i.e. Mrs. Beeton, et al...The copyright notice was given for the other recipes as the recipes are copyright in the United States. If you had checked, I did not use the whole recipe only a portion of each one and then said visit the site for more information. I also believe this was fair use as the material was used for research purposes. Finally, I was pushed into listing recipes as that is what the Citizendium Editors (which I am not) requested. I personally would have used United States Public Domain recipes. I hope that clarifies the matter.

BTW I did lightly edit and rewrite some of the recipes including the one from James Beard. In the United States ONLY the recipe text NOT the ingredients list is copyrighted.

I'm not sure, but the license seems to say that you can change whatever you want in that recipe - and don't even have to give them credit, though they would appreciate it! D. Matt Innis 23:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
It's easy, Matt, the taste doesn't change. The original recipe by Julia says, "Put in a pan and fry for one hour." I change it to: "Use a large skillet, add the eggs, and cook over moderate heat for one hour." No problem at all. You gotta know what you're writing about when you do it, sure, but if you don't, then why are you writing about recipes in the first place? Hayford Peirce 23:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Haha, therein lies the problem, I can't cook worth a darn! D. Matt Innis 23:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Mary, it is quite okay to use these recipes. But you stopped in the middle of the task. These recipes have now to be rewritten, reformatted, put into context, compared, etc. That is what I mean that the page needs revision. --Peter Schmitt 00:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
"Take a pre-egged skillet and subtract until four remain. Protect from excessive and inadequate heat for 60 minutes." --Howard C. Berkowitz 00:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Howard, lay off the painkillers before you cook! D. Matt Innis 00:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Hayford is correct about recipe writing. I was trying to prevent any potential claims of copyright infringement by using the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) roast turkey recipe. Almost any United States document, unless specifically noted, is copyright free. Works by some state employees are copyright free but most states do not do this. You can rewrite a recipe in YOUR OWN WORDS as the text is the only copyrightable part of a recipe. In fact, my Yahoo Old-Fashioned Recipes cooking list uses public domain recipes for this reason. I am not an attorney so this is not legal advice. Please contact a copyright attorney, if you have further questions. Peter I submitted those recipes exactly in that format and listed them as HISTORIC as I thought they would add some historic provenance (sp?) Also, they are fun to read just the way they are written. Hope this helps.Mary Ash 00:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That all sounds reasonable. In fact, everyone sounds reasonable, except Howard's recipe. It sounds more like what we have is a failure to communicate rather than anything with which anyone disagrees. Mary, you probably need to trust more. David, you probably need to trust more. Hayford, it's good to see you happy and Peter is going to be Peter no matter what I say, thank goodness. Aleta can tell me more than I can tell her. You guys are doing the hard work. I don't want to get in your way. D. Matt Innis 00:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Good to know my efforts have not been in vain. Apropos public employees, I have been known to point out, to those that desired to brief me, that I had not been briefed. For that matter, how can a 10,000 page document be a legal brief? Howard C. Berkowitz 00:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
My favorite was having to make a copy of the nine part stub as the final page was never clear enough to read. And legal briefs are never brief and if you watch the movie Pentagon Wars you can discover other government wonders.Mary Ash 01:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh I have faith Matt. I trusted this would appear. David Finn 07:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Ben Franklin and the Wild Turkey as the United States National Bird ... Oh, my! For heaven's sake, is this a joke? Or what? Milton Beychok 07:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, it had me chuckling at least :) David Finn 07:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It gave me a smile first thing in the morning! D. Matt Innis 11:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Put me in mind of a song about the Eagle [7]. Sandy Harris 11:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hahaha, funny, but soooo true ;-) D. Matt Innis 11:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)It really isn't Hahaha funny. It is sad to think of all the time that will also have to be spent on this one. Milton Beychok 19:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Milt, you did see that it's in Mary's sandbox. You really don't have to do anything if you don't want. But, I really think the song was funny! D. Matt Innis 21:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Sad, yes, as I did misread a post but then it would not have been there if you trusted my research. To be fair Peter and Aleta have always treated me well and I thank them for it. I should have re-read what was written but after getting my flu shot and spending a day outside planting about 200 plants I was tired and I saw the post wrong. I do believe it's time for us to move along to more positive things...Mary Ash 19:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Wild Turkey

Matt where ever you want to insert the article is fine. The article about Benjamin Franklin is written and approved or I would have inserted it there. Old Ben was a Renaissance man and dabbled into a bit of everything. The Benjamin Franklin Talks Turkey source is from: via the newspaper source listed, and Ben Franklin Attempts to Electrocute a Turkey is from American Physical Society. No, the APS is not a bunch of physical education nuts <BG> but is the society for physicists. The folks who think up the creative ideas for engineers to implement.Mary Ash 14:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC) how

Mary, we have an article about physicists and also one about engineers. Look at the edit page of this talk page comment and you will see how to avoid red links like physicists and engineers in your posted comments. Studying edit pages is an excellent way to learn such tips. Regards, Milton Beychok 00:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My email

Ooops... that was my old email. I've updated it. Can I assume that my votes are still registered? -Derek Hodges 18:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are now! Just had to make sure it really was you :) Thanks! D. Matt Innis 18:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Need speedy deletion as soon as possible

I just tagged Image:Steam Cracker.jpg for speedy deletion. I had thought it was okay to use photos from ... but decided recently that I had better check with Nova Chemicals. They responded and strongly opposed any permission. Would you please speedily delete that image?

I have deleted the image from the two articles that used it.

Thanks, Milton Beychok 00:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Got it! D. Matt Innis 01:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Please check your mailbox

NM Thanks!Mary Ash 01:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing there?? D. Matt Innis 02:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Sent. Mary Ash 02:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Added two diagrams to Chemistry/Draft.

Matt, I added two diagrams to the "Atoms section" of the Draft version of the Approved article Chemistry. They should also be added to the Approved version. There was no revision whatsoever of the content ... just added the diagrams. Is re-approval necessary? I am the only active Chemistry editor at the moment. Milton Beychok 22:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Rob Tito would have been thrilled to have images, I know ;-) I added them. D. Matt Innis 01:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Matt, David Volk commented (in the Forums) that it would be better if one of the images showed different colors for the neutrons and protons in the atom's nucleus. In response to that, I uploaded a new image that does just that and used it to replace one of the images in the Chemistry/Draft article. I also revised the wording of the captions in both images as well as their sizes to match each other. Again, there were no changes in the article's text.
The upshot is that we really need to get both images again placed in the Approved version as well. The two revised image templates are in the "Atoms section" of the Draft version. I apologize for asking your help on this again. Milton Beychok 05:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Done! D. Matt Innis 14:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Going cold turkey

Hi, Matt, could you take a look at: and offer your considered opinion when you have a moment? Many thanks! Hayford Peirce 22:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

My last email to you?

Matt, have you received the last email I sent you? About the Chemistry article? Milton Beychok 20:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I did, but sure am glad you reminded me! Done. D. Matt Innis 20:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh-oh - metadata 'oopsie'

Hi Matt. I created 1776 (play) but metadataed 1776 (musical). What's the best way for me to fix this? Aleta Curry 01:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you want me to delete 1776 (musical)? D. Matt Innis 02:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Probably redirect to 1776 (play), since, if you delete it, someone else is likely to come along and start another stub at some point. Can you say, 'turkey'? :) Aleta Curry 02:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, redirected 1776 (musical) to 1776 (play) and deleted the metadata to (musical)... hope that works! Be Careful out there!! :) D. Matt Innis 02:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but you'll grant me that can be argued both ways! I plead 'too close to call'! My reasoning is that 1776 is a play, with music; it ain't Annie Get Your Gun. But I'm open to arguments if others see it differently. Aleta Curry 02:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Then there's the real question... does it reeeeaaaally matter? D. Matt Innis 03:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
"Grampa Bill lives on a hill, With someone he just married. There he is, at ninety-three, Doin' what comes natchurly!" Puts me in mind of some old geezer we all know! Hayford Peirce 03:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
You talkn' 'bout me agin' ;)D. Matt Innis 03:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I shoulda guessed Peirce would turn up on this one! Girl who cain't say 'no': Aleta Curry 09:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank YOU!

Matt thank you for shepherding us through the election process and keeping Citizendium afloat through this. I am sure it seemed like you were chasing cats sometimes. Also, thank you for standing up for me, teaching me and showing true wiki spirit. I do hope you are selected as a Constable as you have the character and skills for the job. As always Mary Ash 17:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Mary! The real work starts now... We have a lot of writing to do! D. Matt Innis 17:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes thank you for the good work behind the scenes. (Chunbum Park 20:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC))
You're welcome, Chunbum. And thank you for your good work in front of the scene! D. Matt Innis 20:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well done, and thanks. How are you going to spend your constabulary pension?? John Stephenson 01:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, on women; my wife has it already spent!! D. Matt Innis 01:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
On a trip to Australia?? Aleta Curry 09:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow, that woul dbe AWESOME! Actually, my wife plays online backgammon with people from Australia, so it probably wouldn't be hard to talk her into it! D. Matt Innis 12:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church

Just to let you know I've invited the Ombudsman. Peter Jackson 09:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter, see ya over there! D. Matt Innis 12:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations and request for deletion

Matt, I am going to request speedy deletion of the Atoms and Molecules article. If you will read the last sections of the article's Talk pages, you will see that Daviid Volk, Matt Arenas Mercado and myself have agree that the article simply is not needed since we have individual articles now for the Atom and for the Molecule. Beside that, it was an import from WIkipedia started in 2007 and essentially never really improved. It still has many, many section headers with no content at all.

Thus, two chemistry editors (David Volk and myself) plus a chemistry author (Matt Arenas Mercado) have agree it is not needed. Milton Beychok 19:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The congratulations are for your appointment as Chief Constable. Milton Beychok 19:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Milt! And It's deleted. I though about merging the page to Atom or Molecule, but there wasn't much there, so delete looked fine. D. Matt Innis 00:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Matt, I have now tagged that article for speedy deletion. I know how busy you are at the moment and I would appreciate your doing that when you can spare the time. Milton Beychok 23:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations on your appointment to Chief Constable. I'm sure you'll serve the position well.Mary Ash 00:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Mary! D. Matt Innis 00:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations, Matt. I thought you wanted to retire ...
(I do not want to quarrel with Milt, but in my view these pages should not have been deleted but archived somewhere, in order to save their history.) --Peter Schmitt 00:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I had a feeling you would ;-) I can always undelete and send them somewhere if someone gives me the authority! D. Matt Innis 02:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S. something to add to your EC to do list!

(Unindent)Peter, it was not just me. I tried to have the article somehow improved but I asked David Volk, another chemistry editor like myself, to look at the article. As it turned out, David said it was simply was not needed since we had separate articles for Atom and Molecule. The new chemistry author, Matt Arenas Mercado, also thought the article was not needed. So I joined the two of them and requested deletion. About 95% of the main article history and the talk page history consisted of my edits and my Talk comments. I see no point in using up server space trying to save that history. The main article itself was mostly an outline. It had about a dozen section headers with no content all, and two sections with some content. I copied the two sections with content and stored them in one of my sandboxes ... in case some other chemistry article is found that could use those two sections. Milton Beychok 04:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You do not save server space by deleting a page, Milt. It is still saved but only removed from public view. --Peter Schmitt 08:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I have started a forum thread about server space. John Stephenson 15:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The concern is losing the histories when we cut and paste. I could undelete and "move" them to Milt's user space. D. Matt Innis 16:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) Matt, this is much ado about nothing and I am too busy with the MC and other chores to respond at length. If you want to save and store any of the articles , go ahead and do so, but please not in my user space. Anywhere else would be okay. Also did you delete the Definition and Bibliography pages (both of which I created when I was still trying to see if I could salvage the article)? If not, would you please do so? Our new user, Matt Arenas Mercado, told me he has placed speedy deletion tags on the two subpages and I agree that they also need deletion or storage. Thanks, Milton Beychok 17:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree, Milt. One thing at a time. I'd suggest the EC gives us some guidance on what to do in these cases. It seems flack flies anytime there is a deletion or move request. I'll wait for policy to give me guidance unless I get specific instructions. I'll get to the speedydeletes eventually. If you need a namspace, drop me a note. D. Matt Innis 17:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


If the Chief Constable needs a diversion :-) then there is an approval waiting. (Of course, I do not press you, Matt. It can wait.) --Peter Schmitt 20:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I would have missed it! D. Matt Innis 03:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Your user page is out of date

I know you was our Assistant Chief Constable, but isn't it more important to let people know that you ARE our Chief Constable? ;) --Chris Key 19:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL, probably not :) D. Matt Innis 19:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

About speedy delete

Matt, I know that you are probably as busy as a one-armed paper hanger, but I just want to remind you that speedy deletion has been requested for Atoms and Molecules/Definition and Atoms and Molecules/Bibliography. Milton Beychok 23:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Got 'em. D. Matt Innis 00:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Milton Beychok 02:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Like phoenix from the ashes...

...this page hath returned and is now called this. I agreed with your reasoning for moving the page the first time, and I am pretty sure those reaons have not changed! David Finn 09:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. D. Matt Innis 14:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Matt!

Thought I did it write. Sorry I made a mistake but am glad you fixed it. Mary Ash 20:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem! It happened to me last week. I still don't know why it does that every once in awhile. D. Matt Innis 20:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Approved but still editable?!

Looking at Schröder-Bernstein property I see above it "Edit" rather than "View source" as it should be. What could it mean? Boris Tsirelson 20:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It meant that I forgot to lock it! Thanks for letting me know! D. Matt Innis 20:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox problem

Now another new user, User:D. DiJohnson, is working in CZ:Sandbox. Maybe it is worth to include some explanation about it into our standard welcome message? Boris Tsirelson 06:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the standard welcome might even create User: Name/Sandbox. Howard C. Berkowitz 06:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes. And contain a link to it. Another option is, to give only a red link. It will be a good exercise for the novice, to really create the sandbox, following the red link. Boris Tsirelson 06:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

← This could be accomplished in the standard welcome template by using something like:

If you want to experiment with wiki mark-up, you can [[User:{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}/Sandbox|create your own sandbox]].

On your talk-page, this would be transformed into:

If you want to experiment with wiki mark-up, you can create your own sandbox.

(The template would need to be subst'd every time, though.) Cheers, Thomas H. Larsen 08:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I tried; it works! Boris Tsirelson 10:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Matt, your explanations did not solve the problem (this class has difficulties with the wiki) and your instructions were wrong :-). --Peter Schmitt 00:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
They worked for me. Yes, they need your help. ;-) D. Matt Innis 01:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
They worked for you? Indeed?? Did you try the external link you gave??? --Peter Schmitt 01:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Are we are talking about the same thing? Show me. D. Matt Innis 01:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
[8] --Peter Schmitt 01:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, no duh. Anyone could tell that wasn't going to work! So much for getting anything done on my lunch break :) Thanks for the clean-up. D. Matt Innis 01:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I have no idea how to do any of the other work that this section is suggesting. Try the tech guys. D. Matt Innis 02:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Matt, I have created sandboxes for a good many new members. it is fairly easy ... but I sure would not want the job of creating one for every new member. The software now automatically creates a user page and a user talk page for all new members. I agree with you that automatically creating a sandbox for all new members is something that our tech staff could do ... when they have the time to do so. Milton Beychok 06:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A Suggestion for A Donation

Matt, I left you a good recommendation for a decent donation. Please read your email! Ruth Ifcher 14:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

How much do we need to run these servers? Chris Day 15:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Gentle reminder

Hi, Matt: just to remind you that Acid rain is due for approval today.

Would you rather I remind Anton Sweeney than you? Milton Beychok 23:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Milt, I don't mind if you remind me. I do need to show Anton how to do it, but he is 5 hours away. D. Matt Innis 00:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)