User talk:Larry Sanger/Archive 2

Larry Sanger

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11

"First recruit"

Hi Larry. I'd love to claim the distinction of being the first recruit under the new system, but I actually registered almost a week ago, but no one approved me (or maybe my "let me in" email got lost). But when I saw your message to Citizendium-L tonight I figured that the system might let me in without a manual switch of my status. Ian Ramjohn 19:48, 22 January 2007 (CST)

Oh, I see! Sorry about the delay. All the personnel admins have been extremely busy and we've been falling down on the job. --Larry Sanger 19:50, 22 January 2007 (CST)

No problem. I should have shut up and claimed the distinction anyway ;) Ian Ramjohn 20:03, 22 January 2007 (CST)

Is it possible for the Citizendium community to share the administrator work-load? --Christian Steinbach 03:54, 23 January 2007 (CST)

Required summaries

Warning people who haven't provided a summary is kind of a neat feature for the articles, but it gets annoying when you're using a talk page. Is there any way to turn this off for talk pages? Anthony 20:28, 22 January 2007 (CST)

I'm not sure what you mean--what warning? Let me try not using a summary... Well, I don't get a warning, I wonder why not and you do. Oh, it's a setting. See Special:Preferences and click on "Editing" and then uncheck "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Probably we can set the default "off." Could you send a mail to bugs@citizendium.org to that effect? --Larry Sanger 20:34, 22 January 2007 (CST)

Indeed, it is a preference, and I guess the default was set to "on". Here I thought you went and had someone code that up especially for CZ.  :) Should I send an email to bugs saying that you want to set the default to "off"? Anthony 20:45, 22 January 2007 (CST)

Yes please. --Larry Sanger 20:53, 22 January 2007 (CST)

OK, done, now I'm off for the night. Anthony 20:57, 22 January 2007 (CST)

Thanks! --Larry Sanger 21:16, 22 January 2007 (CST)

re: your comment

Hi Larry, Yes I do understand that forking/unforking does not really affect whether Wikipedia will take our content or not. Don't take me wrong, I'm not completely giving up and leaving in protest like I have seen others do, I will see how everything goes for the next few weeks/months and I will come back if I'm convinced that there is a future here - I have a lot of other things that I could be spending my time on, so I would really like to see that my work will not just disappear into obscure parts of the internet. I mentioned the unforking busieness not because I think it is such a bad idea, but because it made me realise that CZ has a very long way to go until it becomes recognized and has a lot going against it. --Konstantin Tchernov 01:07, 23 January 2007 (CST)

Well, Konstantin, we aren't idiots.  :-) If we see that there is less activity, or not as much as we might expect, then we will refork. In either case, you should see substantial activity, and thus there is no reason to take a break at all!  :-)

Yes, we've always had a long way to go in either case. But do not underestimate our potential. I don't, because I saw the growth of Wikipedia first hand and I know how it happened. I am seeing the same things happen--and I will be very interested to watch the Google effect, when we launch publicly and begin more viral growth than we have now. It will take time, true, but as long as we are growing--as we are--then it is only a matter of time before we have a bulk of material comparable to Wikipedia. --Larry Sanger 08:12, 23 January 2007 (CST)

I am enjoying this,Larry

Larry, you will be please to know that I have started working on some British Commonwealth numismatic articles. So, please feel free to look through my contributions list. You may not be aware that I have decided to create some categories in relation to numismatics, as there will eventually be some coin and banknote collectors who will be joining us. I am hoping to be a much better Citizendian than I was as a Wikipedian. - (Aidan Work 00:51, 27 January 2007 (CST))

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 constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

RE:Welcome

Thanks for the welcome, Dr. Sanger. This is an interesting concept shift from Wikipedia, and I look forward to contributing and seeing how the project develops! Richard Simões 18:54, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Welcome! I was travelling for a few days but am back now. --Larry Sanger 21:30, 31 January 2007 (CST)

how are the ties??

Larry One thing that struck me as odd, I mean where is Jekyll and where is Hyde. Beesly - Sanger :) Check your talk page and wipe the sh*t away that person left behind. I do have one serious request (rubbing my hands, grabbing additional salt): will you please put the welcoming message in the user TALK page and not in tehe USER page? (rub it in rub it in). Thanks, glad to be able to pull your legs for a change :)). Robert Tito 14:08, 31 January 2007 (CST)

(-: Reverted... --Larry Sanger 21:30, 31 January 2007 (CST)

crowded logo??

dont sit on top of it then please Robert Tito 21:51, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Roberto, we need to talko about how many can sito on the logo. --Larry Sanger 22:06, 31 January 2007 (CST)

trio musta beo to mucho :) Robert Tito 22:25, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Categories

Larry:

All I wanted to do was make 'Category:English queen consorts' go away. When I couldn't find out how to edit it away, I tried replacing it with 'Category:English queens consort' and redirecting it, but that didn't work, and that article is the stub I was using to try to redirect it to a non-empty place, since I couldn't make it go to an empty one, but it kept saying there was an editing conflict I don't understand. When I tried to ask a question, I kept being directed to a place it said I had to register and couldn't start a new subject, and I didn't know what that was all about, so I gave up and was getting ready to send you this message when I got yours. Where, please, is there a page I can ask questions by editing them onto a CZ page 24/7 without doing e-mails I have to go to mailboxes to open or postings to forums/fora I don't know how to do?

Also, how come some pages have such big type, like your talk page now, and some are formatted too wide for me to read on my screen, like the one about choosing a dog yesterday? k kay 23:07, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Er...I don't know? Please press that "Questions?" button on the left and ask away. --Larry Sanger 14:28, 1 February 2007 (CST)

recruitment letter

http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/Citizendium_Pilot:Recruitment_Letter#Version_2_for_Biological_.2F_Health_Sciences

Larry, could you help me on this? -Tom Kelly (Talk) 23:41, 31 January 2007 (CST)

I hope to make time soon! As usual, catching up is a big chore. --Larry Sanger 14:26, 1 February 2007 (CST)

protection of pages

Hi Larry, Protection of pages using a MAC does NOT work. You can put it in edit mode, but selecting/deleting of options is impossible. hence you remain with an unprotected page, I tried to protect Nancy's pages during the vandal attack as she was treated rather rude but I couldnt do it in the way I expected or wanted it to work. Robert Tito 13:23, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Hi Rob, to protect a page, you only need to press the "protect" button. Why do you need to select or delete options in order to do this? --Larry Sanger 14:21, 1 February 2007 (CST) OK, I tested it out. I see what you mean now, you do need to select "Sysops Only". What happens when you try to select it? You should be able to do that on any computer using any browser. --Larry Sanger 14:24, 1 February 2007 (CST) Hi Larry, I get NO feed abck WHAT is protected when I select ONE option. If I try to protect edit (sysops) AND move (sysops) that is impossible to do, strange the combo is possible then. see ya. Rob

searching for new users with the right interests and level /* CUT */

Larry, Due to the large amount of new users it starts to get errattic to find people you might be looking for to work on particular topics. Is there a script that enables us to look for users with qualification/field/topic knowledge A and B? It would be nice to get a list with possible candidates then to ask them if they are willing to contribute so a certain topic as either author or editor. Hope there is such a script. Robert Tito 23:10, 2 February 2007 (CST)

Go to search, then scroll to the bottom of the search results, and search the User namespace. That's the best I can do right now, I'm afraid. --Larry Sanger 00:46, 3 February 2007 (CST)

Citizendium's Village Pump?

Dr. Sanger,
Congratulations for your project, you're really making history!
I have a question: why don't we use a Citizendium page to support Citizens discussions in the same way of Wikipedia's Village Pump? I guess many Citizens don't like that Forum, because its no-”wikiform/structure” and the fact that it's out of Citizendium (needing one more password). --Roberto Cruz 17:53, 3 February 2007 (CST)

I hope you are right. I am optimistic, but you know that hubris leads to nemesis. And you know why? Because hubristic people get complacent and complacency opens one up to all sorts of weaknesses. Well, I ain't complacent, I can guarantee you that. When I say I am optimistic, I mean only that I am not worrying quite as much.  :-) Somebody really ought to write an article about hubris, not just about the meaning of the word, but about the ancient Greek concept. I'd be quite interested. Actually, I see that Wikipedia's article looks reasonably good--but what do I know, I'm just a philosopher.

Anyway, as to a Village Pump, I'm not sure that the extra complexity of the total discussion system would "pay for itself." Granted, it would be easier for people to jump straight to a wiki-based discussion system, but it really isn't that hard to click on the "Discussion forums" link, and besides, you can opt to always be logged in. So ultimately, what's the difference? Besides, wikis are woefully suboptimal as discussion software. I personally much prefer SMF Forums.

We will eventually--or, it's our plan to--have a single login for all CZ components. --Larry Sanger 19:03, 3 February 2007 (CST)

Propaganda

Dr. Sanger,

I'm making a lot of propaganda inside Wikipedia about Citizendium [1] (lol) and trying to get new Citizens/Citizendians among unsatisfied Wikipedians (like me) [2] (a good job, I guess! ;-) --Roberto Cruz 09:17, 6 February 2007 (CST)

• Thanks, Roberto--although this is not something I want to encourage or that I condone. I would of course like Wikipedians to know that there is an increasingly viable alternative to Wikipedia, but it is really not fair play to use Wikipedia's own resources to get the word out. We of course would not permit people to come to CZ and post many messages to the effect, "Don't contribute here--contribute to Wikipedia!" --Larry Sanger 11:28, 6 February 2007 (CST)

• Dr. Sanger, you're right: it isn't a fair play. I changed my coments to a neutral position, only inform my Wikipedian colleagues about CZ positive features. --Roberto Cruz 12:59, 6 February 2007 (CST)

Two points:

• I am editing at both WP and CZ, and encouraging others to do so. I don't think it should be presented as an either/or choice.
• The best way to get Wikipedians to edit at CZ is to promise that they can work in peace without being plagued by trolls, vandals and fanatics. This requires CZ to exercise some care in admitting editors who have bad records at WP (ie, have been banned for good reasons). Adam Carr 19:20, 6 February 2007 (CST)

Adam, while I am sure that WP has made most of its bans on sensible grounds, I've seen enough evidence that the WP arbitration/banning process is dysfunctional that we really must make our own calls. The nice thing, however, is that we can be quite a bit more efficient in our own bans, because we have made it quite clear that we do not tolerate much behavior that WP goes out of its way to tolerate. --Larry Sanger 12:02, 7 February 2007 (CST)

I have seen a situation where a quality editor was banned for one week for removing potentially libelous content from WP. Apparently, Jimbo caught wind, who then rebuked the lynch mob that instigated the ban and then the admin who hit the ban button. The user was back in several hours. But that does not happen very often. WP bans for senseless vandalism are probably all valid, but I do not trust it much further than that. Stephen Ewen 16:59, 7 February 2007 (CST)

OK, but my basic point was that: "The best way to get Wikipedians to edit at CZ is to promise that they can work in peace without being plagued by trolls, vandals and fanatics." I hope you take note of that, and make sure that it remains true. Adam Carr 19:11, 8 February 2007 (CST)

Well, amen to that, brother. --Larry Sanger 19:35, 8 February 2007 (CST)

A quick question...

...TIA? --Jeff Raymond 13:19, 6 February 2007 (CST)

TIA = Thanks in Advance (I think) -- ZachPruckowski (Talk) 21:10, 6 February 2007 (CST)

Yes, thanks in advance. Nothing indecent, I assure you. You can consult the Great Oracle of Google about all such things y'know. --Larry Sanger 11:42, 7 February 2007 (CST)

I hear the head constable will get you for that abreviation stuff;) --Matt Innis (Talk) 13:23, 7 February 2007 (CST)

ROTFLMAO --Larry Sanger 13:40, 7 February 2007 (CST)

IWBROTFIIDNHaRC,BISLMAO (I Would Be Rolling On The Floor If I DidN't Have a Reclining Chair, But I'm Still Laughing My A$$ Off) -- ZachPruckowski (Talk) 16:56, 7 February 2007 (CST)

your in troooublllle. >;!--Matt Innis (Talk) 17:02, 7 February 2007 (CST)

TIA - is that for the Tran-Loi-Minh-Qi-Gong Kung-Fu International Association? Stephen Ewen 16:49, 7 February 2007 (CST)

Perhaps we need an article on that...d;-) . Thanks! --Jeff Raymond 17:27, 7 February 2007 (CST)

Tran-Loi-Minh Qi-Gong Kung-Fu International Association.[3] There. All ready for you, Jeff. Hope you can read Swedish, though. :-) Stephen Ewen 20:11, 7 February 2007 (CST)

Econophysics + Wikipedia

Just to clarify the Wikipedia sourcing reference on Econophysics: a colleague and I had just begun a rewrite of the WP article on a temporary subpage, when it occurred to me that it would be much better simply to write a new article for CZ and then feed the changes back if the WP community desire. I had written a small amount of material already, so acknowledged that it had been on WP first; however, it's all my own work, so maybe not required. —Joseph Rushton Wakeling 14:03, 9 February 2007 (CST)

Copied WP articles

Hello Larry,

Thanks for your message. Yes, almost everything I've copied over I intend to work on and improve (and what I've copied was to the greatest extent possible my own work). Some of the stuff I've copied were "works in progress" where I was unhappy with what was in Wikipedia, felt I could do much better, and had got some way before thinking that CZ would be a better outlet (more quality control, more possibility to do original work, etc.). There are a couple of small articles which I wrote almost in their entirety on WP, which I don't see an obvious way of improving, and which will form part of a larger-scale group of articles here which will be different from WP. If you would like me to delete those I will.

Where it makes sense I'm keen for material to be shared back and forth between the projects but I'm certainly not intending just to do blanket mass-copying from WP. That would be pointless. The whole point of my writing for CZ is to be able to make a (mostly) fresh start on certain topics of interest.

—Joseph Rushton Wakeling 08:05, 10 February 2007 (CST)

Roger that, thanks and welcome, Joseph. --Larry Sanger 08:14, 10 February 2007 (CST)

A real Indo-Europeanist has nibbled, by creating an account.

Google "Piotr Gąsiorowski". I did leave a note on Cybalist. Miguel Carrasquer Vidal also hangs out there, as have I in times past, and rejoined the discussion in the past two days.

These two guys are the real thing. You gotta grovel before them. Piotr was an early admin on WP, but abandoned the chaotic mess swiftly. They are Indo-Europeanists, polyglot polymaths on all questions concerning anything Indo-European (and on other lingustic matters, such as Basque). I own one of Piotr's published learnéd works on Old English. Unfortunatly, Piotr has not activated email, but I will make a post requesting such (and insisting that someone like him or MCV email you their CVs is almost insulting to their reps--tone it down). --Mark Odegard 22:41, 10 February 2007 (CST)

Mark, thanks for the advice. --Larry Sanger 23:31, 10 February 2007 (CST)

P.S. if you mean that you made a call for participation to CYBALIST, can you please record the fact on CZ:Mailing List Outreach. Thanks! --Larry Sanger 23:34, 10 February 2007 (CST)

Did that, See history (can you actually cite a prior revision? apparently not. Piotr is in Poland, about 8 hours east of me, and this is the weekend. I remain nibbling. My invite is here: Cybalist. I think you are aware of the quality of certain of those who post on this list. If PG and MCV sign on, I'd give them plenary dictatorial power over all matters IE, to include all articles on European languages (including Aquitanian (=Basque) and Uralian (Finnish, Hungarian, et al.)), with me just slavishly assisting. My Proto-Indo-European language article is a teaser: properly, this article will describe the reconstructed language. I usually forget to sign, but this time I did not: --Mark Odegard 00:00, 11 February 2007 (CST)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant that you need to say that you have mailed those lists (whatever they are) in the same way I marked my name after PHILOSOP. See the page for my example, or read the instructions. Thanks, again!!!

No one, no matter how famous or distinguished, will have "plenary dictatorial power" over any domain. We will be overjoyed to have them on board, and (I hope) will walk lightly around them. I hope that will be enough! --Larry Sanger 00:24, 11 February 2007 (CST)

Vertebral subluxation

You might as well have an article about Creationism or Intentional design. This is ChiroQuackTic. They are good at massage, but they tend to claim curing cancer thru supplements that they sell in their waiting room.

Chiropratic, dear Larry, is unproven. This is the first article that will utterly destroy Citizendium. This is quack medicine.

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 constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.--Mark Odegard 03:10, 11 February 2007 (CST)

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 constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

And for the last couple of hours, I think I am being willfuly vandlized, in name space especially. My machine is working weirdly on this forum. --Mark Odegard 05:52, 11 February 2007 (CST)

Mark, you will not receive many warnings about this, because we are quite strict about it. In the interests of a smoothly-working project, you may not make complaints about other Citizens here on the wiki. Any such complaints will be summarily erased. If you wish to make a complaint about someone's behavior, contact constables@citizendium.org. --Larry Sanger 08:33, 11 February 2007 (CST)

Hi Larry, I gave my views at Mark's talk page, more in response to his comment at the VS talk page that was deleted. I find the attitude incomprehensible, so much so that I wonder if this whole lot is for real; or are there two persons editing with one account?? --Christo Muller 16:53, 11 February 2007 (CST)

Time will tell, I'm sure! --Larry Sanger 17:01, 11 February 2007 (CST)

Am I to be banned for saying Chiropractic is fine masssage but medical quackery? I feel the chiropractic conspiracy descending upon me. I think WP is a Scientology problem. Is C'dium to be a forum that trusts the Palmar Method? --Mark Odegard 01:41, 12 February 2007 (CST)

Vertebral subluxation should be deleted as a Quack chiropractic article. --Mark Odegard 01:46, 12 February 2007 (CST)

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 constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

Simply pick out the text in which you think they make a faulty assumption and ask for evidence, is none can be produced then the text should be removed from the article. If the source is is severely flawed then you should clearly state in what way and lift out the text until a better one is produced. If the source is accurate then there is no problem. If you consider the whole article as bogus, then mark for deletion or rewrite the article so it states whetever position that can be supported with strong evidence. Just simply claiming fraud seems to be a sure way to create a nonproductive conflict. David Kuhn 06:06, 12 February 2007 (CST)

RE Primers on DNA

I was half expecting your judgement, and the Primer kite was not my first choice, and was partly a compromise with others. Well move on. Cheers David Tribe 20:53, 12 February 2007 (CST)

Not that it gives me any joy, but unless we want to intermix levels within the same wiki...it's not beyond discussion, it just seems like an overcomplication of a system we'd like to keep simple. --Larry Sanger 20:57, 12 February 2007 (CST)

'Calling Time' on idiosyncratic contributions

With reference to the point above: " "The best way to get Wikipedians to edit at CZ is to promise that they can work in peace without being plagued by trolls, vandals and fanatics." I asked a related question on arriving here yesterday, but didn't get the reply I was seeking. I understand the point that there is "enough evidence that the WP arbitration/banning process is dysfunctional that we really must make our own calls.". The point, as I understand it, is that having been banned from the other place is not enough to be banned from here. That is quite right. However, I still don't understand in what sense it is going to be any different here. Everyone at the other place is agreed that the real problem is those disruptive individuals who are not acting in bad faith, but have some message or belief (essentially OR) that they think is very important, and must be got across, and so make strange and idiosyncratic edits to existing articles. Eventually they grasp the 'no original research' policy, but then they argue endlessly about the interpretation of the policy, rant endlessly about their idiosyncratic views on the talk page, and are very effective at bringing article development to a halt without violating any actual policy. They really believe their stuff, they really are acting in good faith, and they are good-willed to a large extent. But they really believe they have something important to say. And so good editors are driven away, and the idiosyncratic ones stay on to create some truly interesting articles.

Now in moderated newsgroups there is a very effective tool for ending this nonsense, and that is the moderator 'calling time' on a particular discussion or thread. Is there any equivalent tool here in CZ? Without it, the fundamental problem that has plagued Wikipedia from the outset is bound to replay itself here. It is not evident here, but that is because the group has started with a call to experts. Now that anyone can join, how long before the drama replays itself? I really couldn't face again what I had to go through the last month. Edward buckner 05:52, 13 February 2007 (CST)

PS I worked through the policy pages, I think I have answered my own question. There are powers that an editor has, subject to segregation of duties with constables, that allows obviously problem editors to be blocked, or banned. "If an editor feels that a certain author produces such a quantity of bad edits, which require so much "cleaning up" (if not outright deletion) that it would actually be better for the project if the person simply were not to work in an area (or on the project as a whole), then the editor may recommend that the author be banned from editing a certain article, from any of a group of articles, or from the Citizendium as a whole." That one alone would do the trick. The policy overall seems well written and carefully thought out. Edward buckner 06:19, 13 February 2007 (CST)

Thanks Edward, but I don't think it does actually solve the problem entirely. You've articulated something I've worried about a lot, because I am intimately acquainted with the sort of problem you describe. The problem is that there are bound to be "rogue" editors or just plain difficult editors, who will constantly get into conflicts with other editors. There needs to be (as the Policy Outline says, but does not detail) some sort of dispute resolution process for editors, as that will solve some of the problems; but I think there also ultimately needs to be a way to eject editors who are constantly "on the attack." The nice thing is that we can expect such problems in much smaller proportion to the problems we might have with authors and the typical Wikipedia type; so far, expert editors seem to be, whether strongly opinionated or not, professional, collegial, and not hard to work with. --Larry Sanger 09:50, 13 February 2007 (CST)

I don't think 'attacking' is necessarily the problem - for example if one editor (or do you mean author?) is being plain disruptive. I'm a philosopher, and philosophers survive by argument. I find it hard to write anything without constant challenge from others. What I'm talking about is plain 'barminess'. Is that a word in the U.S.? Stuff that any reasonable person, even a philosopher, would recognise as daft. Edward buckner 02:32, 14 February 2007 (CST)

Well, we needn't debate about the precise nature of disruption, because I'm sure we can agree that it comes in many shapes and sizes. Wise argument can obviously be very stimulating; obviously, I wouldn't have meant "attacks" like that. --Larry Sanger 08:01, 14 February 2007 (CST)

WP templates

Thanks for the tip on the WP material. In addition to that, I have been checking the status of the articles. Of 34 articles initially listed in the "Top" group in Physics, I have checked 21 of them. Only 1 (the main "Physics" article) has shown any work since mid-November. I moved 13 of these 21 out of the Top group - they just aren't even close to being the most important Physics articles. I'm thinking delete if they aren't that important and no one is working on them. But keep the Top class articles, regardless. I'll send a note to that effect to Robert Tito when I'm done. James F. Perry 15:11, 13 February 2007 (CST)

Frankly, I'm not sure it's such a good idea to keep the Top class articles if no one has worked on them (i.e., if there has been just one or two edits and only to add a category tag). Anyway, thanks! --Larry Sanger 15:14, 13 February 2007 (CST)

Don't fight the blacksmith, he has this heavy hammer.

Hi Larry, I believe the misunderstanding between Robert Tito and Greg during the little crisis of the 10th is something you should keep in your collection of lighter anecdotes about the youth of this project. I have not a shred of doubt that the camaraderie that I have observed at Citizendium would survive much worse with impunity (and a smile). Robert not knowing of Greg made me wonder: Have you (or someone else) given the guys at the forge a decent write-up anywhere - a blog entry, or better, a page on the wiki? I may have missed it, but I do believe that they deserve clear recognition, and authors and editors should know their value, tasks and capabilities. They may even be persuaded to do so themselves (wishful thinking?). Regards --Christo Muller 17:20, 13 February 2007 (CST) Christo, it made me laugh as I have no hard feelings towards Greg, nor he towards me. We will however pull the others leg on occasion - no doubt about that. But it would have been a good idea if everybody knew who was involved and having what role, I totally agree. (By the way - I kept wondering how some vandal - while his IP was blocked could re-enter several times, and tried to outwit him :) ) cheers, and yes as anecdote it will do, provided people like to laugh Robert Tito | Talk 17:25, 13 February 2007 (CST)

Christo, you are right, of course. I should take time to give them the credit they deserve. --Larry Sanger 17:58, 13 February 2007 (CST)

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 constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

Main page

Just to let you know that on my PC running with 800X600 the CZ logo is covering half the "Sorry if you can't sign up" message to the point I have no idea what it says and cannot "click" on it. Matt Innis (Talk) 06:47, 15 February 2007 (CST)

could you put a link on my user page for how-to article on redirects

I'm having trouble finding a how-to article for redirects. Could you post one on my user page when you get a chance? -Tom Kelly (Talk) 13:45, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Either use the "move" button or type "#REDIRECT [[Name Of Target Page]]". How's that? --Larry Sanger 13:58, 15 February 2007 (CST)

I'm somewhat afraid to move an article without knowing exactly what it does. Will the 2 sentences written at platelets overwrite the entire platelet article when I move it there? Also, should I copy the information in the platelets article in to the talk page of platelet to keep of record of what someone wrote in platelets? Also, should I keep the talk page of platelets when I move it? What does that check box mean about moving talk page? I don't quite understand the wording about moving the talk page in the "move" tab. Please consider changing this wording slightly. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 14:14, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Oh, I see. Well, in this case you definitely want to make a redirect and not a move. A move deletes the article that you're moving to, clears the way as it were. I don't even think the system will let you do that, actually, unless you're a sysop. Anyway, use that "#REDIRECT" code to redirect from platelets to platelet, and then depending about how you feel about them, work in your two sentences from the former into the latter...or whatever. This sort of merger of pages is not something the system is really set up to do. You have to do it by hand.

Eventually we'll have a complete "how to" guide here, or a full and deep set of links to the mediawiki documentation available at meta.wikimedia.org and mediawiki.org. --Larry Sanger 14:18, 15 February 2007 (CST)