imported>Milton Beychok |
imported>Milton Beychok |
| Line 3: |
Line 3: |
|
| |
|
| == I just archived the last batch of postings. == | | == I just archived the last batch of postings. == |
| | | That is why this page looks so empty and desolate at the moment. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 01:41, 6 October 2008 (CDT) |
| That is why this page looks so empty and desolate at the moment. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 22:09, 1 July 2008 (CDT) | |
| | |
| == Heating things up - if it didn't have a 'WP' tag ==
| |
| | |
| Hi Milt,
| |
| | |
| I've just read [[Specific heat ratio]] and liked it. I would nominate it for 'new draft of the week' but it's got a from WP tag. Did you originate it over there? If so, I'd feel comfortable nominating it.
| |
| | |
| Also, small thing but, since it's something of an advanced concept, I wonder if the first paragraph could indicate that, since it can't be 'dumbed down' and remain true to the subject. Then again, maybe all chem. engineering stuff is like that? What was I talking about again?
| |
| | |
| [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 19:27, 3 July 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :Aleta, I was only a minor contributor to the WP article. However, I completely rewrote and reformatted it (as well as deleted sections that I thought were useless), renamed it and added references. Regards, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 20:11, 3 July 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==Archiving==
| |
| | |
| Hi, I've been mostly offline recently (a bit worn down from trying to do to much online and offline at the same time), and I just saw your message about the archive, so my apologies for the lack of response. Glad you got it fixed! [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 10:48, 4 July 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Second opinion (energy) ==
| |
| | |
| Dear Milton, quite some time ago I made a start with writing about the extremely important topic [[Energy (science)|energy]]. Last January I sollicited some comments, [[User_talk:Gordan_Feric#Energy|see here]], about the article, because I'm eager to improve it. Today I found that Anthony Argyriou made some [[Talk:Energy_%28science%29#Definition_and_introduction|comments]]. I will answer him later today in some detail, because of the importance of the subject, but after a quick scan of his comments, I got the impression that he didn't read the text of the article carefully enough. So, it is important that a knowledgeable third person will participate in this debate that hopefully leads to an excellent article on this topic. Therefore, I like to invite you to read the article, to give your opinion, and to take part in the discussion, and in the spirit of a Wiki make improvements (and in the spirit of CZ explain why you believe that they are indeed improvements. The latter statement is in fact superfluous because I know that you're in the habit of explaining your changes). --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 03:11, 15 July 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :Paul, at the moment, I am quite tied up. I will try to review the article carefully within the next week or so. In a quick scan of the article's Talk page, I read through the exchanges between you and Larry about the title. Personally, I see no reason why the title could not be "Energy (physics)" and still be multi-disciplinary. It would not ruffle my feathers as an engineer to have that title and I don't think any chemists, biologists, or other would be bothered that title. I agree with you that psychology is not a "science" any more than is economics even though practitioners of those two fields may think otherwise. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 03:46, 15 July 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::Milton, there is no rush, I wrote the bulk of the article last December, so I can wait another few weeks. My concern is not so much the title of the article, (which I find -- as always -- unimportant because redirects can fix it) but the intro. Anthony admitted that he did not read the article; he read only the intro. He has some criticism on it, and I would appreciate your opinion as well. --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 06:00, 16 July 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == recruiting ==
| |
| | |
| do you have any interest in becoming a recruiter for CZ? (it's not an actual position) I like your idea on the forum on target populations to reach out to. [[User:Tom Kelly|Tom Kelly]] 18:33, 15 July 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == ammonia production article ==
| |
| | |
| Milton, I commented on the Intro on the article's Talk page. Will review remainder of article soon. Thanks for asking for my thoughts. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 17:10, 23 July 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Energy ==
| |
| | |
| Milton, in my view your intro to energy is perfect, but before we replace the current intro, we must ask Anthony whether your text solves his problems. I'll leave him a msg asking to read your sandbox.--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 02:19, 24 July 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :I answered you [[User:Milton_Beychok/Sandbox2#Discussion_of_your_table: |here]].--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 03:47, 25 July 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::Milton, I added your intro, with a few very minor changes and a new paragraph at the end. I answered Anthony [[User:Anthony_Argyriou/sandbox|here]]. --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 04:33, 27 July 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==Chemical energy==
| |
| Milton, when you prefer a Wiki table (including lines) in chemical energy, then it is fine with me. You can do whatever you want with this section, as far as I'm concerned. --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 11:08, 27 July 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == About [[CZ:Email us an article in word processor format#Nota Bene]] ==
| |
| | |
| Milton: Good pick-up. Thanks for letting me know about the font-color issue in [[CZ:Email us an article in word processor format#Nota Bene]]. I edited the section for clarity, still leaving it open what CZ decides on a default font-color for links to non-existing articles with article titles.
| |
| | |
| What font-color do you see for blank articles? --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 18:44, 31 July 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :No one seems to like the slate gray you see for blank wiki-links. I modified my Pinkwich5.css file to add line:
| |
| | |
| a.new { color:#810541; }
| |
| | |
| Retrieved from "http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Anthony.Sebastian/Pinkwich5.css"
| |
| | |
| Now I see a soft-red, a kind of light-maroon, not harsh, still 'red', not distracting, complements to blue for links with articles. I'd like to change to it as the default for a trial run of a feww weeks, see how the citizens like it compared to the slate gray. Can you make that default change? If not, who do I approach.
| |
| | |
| Meanwhile, you might try modifying your Pinkwich5.css file as above and try out the new color. You can always remove it later if CZ decides on a default other than slate gray.
| |
| | |
| Be sure to follow instructions in Note re clearing cache, etc.
| |
| | |
| <font color=#810541>No_Article</font>, [[Life]] --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 11:21, 1 August 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :Anthony, I know how to change the color for myself. However, I do not know how to change the default color for all of CZ. Chris Day was working on this and there has been a great deal of discussion on this in the Forums ... but nothing has yet been changed and I don't know why that is. See [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1767.0.html here] and [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1772.0.html also here] - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]]
| |
| | |
| ::Milton, sorry about the presumption. I asked Chris how to proceed. Thanks. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 16:06, 1 August 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Way to automatically generate list of articles one has created? ==
| |
| | |
| Milton: Do you know a way to automatically generate list of articles one has created? Or does one have to keep track for oneself? --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 22:36, 2 August 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :If there is a way to automatically generate a list of articles one has generated, I am unaware of it. You might ask on the forums. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 00:52, 3 August 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::Good suggestion. Will do. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 09:45, 7 August 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Ammonia ==
| |
| | |
| Milton, I read your ammonia article and it is OK. Personally, I don't recall the desulfurization step, but where I worked in the 60s they used Dutch natural gas, maybe that was low on sulfur. Also I seem to remember that we got the nitrogen by distillation of liquid air. The plant where I worked was next to a steel factory where they used pure oxygen to burn the carbon out of cast iron, so that may have been special for that particular plant. You don't say much about the production of nitrogen, though.
| |
| | |
| There is much overlap with [[Haber process]]. I don't like the emphasis on the production of hydrogen in that article. Do you know whether there is any Haber-Bosch plant in the world that makes hydrogen by electrolysis? That is energetically very expensive, so one needs a very cheap power source. Again, not much is said about the nitrogen production. How would you feel about merging the two articles (+ redirects of course)?--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 07:40, 8 August 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :Milton, you write: ''I would rather keep on writing new articles to build up an "infrastructure" of chemical engineering articles and not get involved in what might get to be lengthy process of achieving concensus to merge.''
| |
| :That is exactly my strategy, I spend most of my time on new articles (at the moment about electromagnetism + its people) and don't go into disputes on things related to, for instance, quantum mechanics (which was my main subject for 40 years). I was at a certain point in time (before you joined) tempted to work on Haber-Bosch, but existed the temptation for the same reason.--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 02:46, 9 August 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Thanks for the Hawkeye ==
| |
| | |
| Many thanks. That noise you hear is my bopping myself on the head to think that I tried different browsers, etc., to upload it, and never tried uploading another image to discover it was the image itself. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 15:12, 30 August 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == changes to approval version ==
| |
| | |
| The three to four day window prior to approval is for copy editing and even quite large changes. At the end of the approval period the editor or editors finalise which version is locked. In my experience, the placement of the approval notice can result in many changes since every author and editor realises there is a limited time to have input on the content. This is a good thing.
| |
| | |
| If things get out of hand, too many changes or disagreements, then Howard can always delay the approval, or approve based on the original version he tagged. Any other editor in the workgroup can remove the template at anytime prior to the aprroval deadline if they disagree with the quality of the content. Basically, the system is very flexible. Even after the articles are locked a constable can correct typo's or grievous errors, if an editor asks for such a change. In that instance though it is at the discretion of the constable to make the change. Does this make sense? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 15:55, 17 September 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::It does make sense. And I will change that one word. Thanks, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 15:57, 17 September 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == scratchbook ==
| |
| | |
| I called it scratchbook: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User_talk:Paul_Wormer/scratchbook --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 01:42, 22 September 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Welcome messages ==
| |
| | |
| Hi Milton, thanks for your comment. Normally, I just greet newcomers to my workgroups but on the occasion of Biology Week, I thought I might extended this to some others, too. I changed the recommendations accordingly. [[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 02:55, 24 September 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == I just hope I filled out the template correctly... ==
| |
| | |
| 40 years of programming, and I still find the template confusing. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 13:44, 24 September 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :For a while now I have thought the way to go is a drop down menu option to make sure everything is consistent. it would also act a reminder with regard to what is expected in each slot. Problem is I don't have the skills to write it. Keep it in mind if you run into a keen programmer. Or may be you could do it? :) [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 14:01, 24 September 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Getting there ==
| |
| | |
| :[[CZ:Chemical_Engineering_Subgroup]]
| |
| :[[:Category:Chemical_Engineering_Subgroup]]
| |
| | |
| See the two pages above. One a home for the subgroup (currently empty except for the navigation tool), the second is the category for the articles restricted to your subgroup. This is only a start but it is better than it was before, in the sense that the links are more specific to the needs of the subgroup. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 09:59, 26 September 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :Looks great, Chris. Just one problem ... [[American Institute of Chemical Engineers/Draft]] shows up in "Articles" but does not show up in "Drafts". Regards, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 11:06, 26 September 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::This problem is due to the categories being assigned automatically by the subpages template based on the metadata. While the category does appear correctly at the bottom of the page the change will not become effective until a minor edit has been made. As far as I can tell the wikimedia is very slow at updating categories, sometimes weeks. But after each edit the categories do get reassigned. This also occurs in wikipedia but it is less of an issue there since most categories are assigned manually. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 12:28, 26 September 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Thanks and a question ==
| |
| | |
| Thanks for assisting with my sandbox! And a question.
| |
| | |
| I've started a revision of the article [[Gender]] and have a proposed revision on the discussion page of the article and on [[User:Timothy_Perper/Sandbox]]. Question(s): I do not know the social protocols and customs here for adding new material and replacing old material (the mechanics are easy and aren't the problem; the social customs are what's important). Obviously I don't want to annoy whoever it was who wrote the first draft, and would like to contact that person if possible. And I'd also like some advice about how to go about discussing the content of the changes before just pasting and copying. Any words of wisdom? Thanks. [[User:Timothy Perper|Timothy Perper]] 12:36, 26 September 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :Hi, Timothy. The main focus in Citizendium (CZ) is collaboration. In general, if you make some minor copy edits (i.e., mis-spellings, adding links to other CZ articles, rewording a few sentences without changing their basic meaning and content, etc.), then that is rarely a problem.
| |
| | |
| :However, if you change the content of an article or section or large part of an article or add a new section, then you should first discuss it on the Talk (discussion) page of the article and even go so far as to provide the exact wording of your changes or new section. You should also click on the History tab of the article and try to find who wrote the material that you propose to change ... then go to that person's Talk page and politely ask him to read your comments on the Talk page of the article. In other words, make sure that he/she are aware of your proposed revisions or new sections.
| |
| | |
| :Some of the current articles in CZ were written by people who are seemingly no longer active. When you go to the User page of whoever wrote or was a major contributor to the article, you can click on the "User contribution" link in the left-hand vertical panel. That will show whether he/she have been active or not in recent months. If they have been inactive for a long time, then don't hold your breath waiting for them to respond to your comments on the article's Talk page.
| |
|
| |
| :The above is how I try to do it (perhaps not always as carefully as I should). I have noticed that sometimes others go ahead and make a fairly large change ... but either in the Edit page summary (at the bottom of the Edit page) or on the article's Talk page they say "If you don't agree, feel free to change it back".
| |
| | |
| :More briefly, don't make large changes or additions unilaterally without first discussing them thoroughly. Does this help you? Regards, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 14:12, 26 September 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Just a question? ==
| |
| | |
| Hi Milton, I'm just wondering if our systems have different time stamps. Does [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Ammonia_production&diff=next&oldid=100389185 this edit] say 14:02? For me it says 17:02... if yours says 14:02, then that does have some implications about assumptions that I make when evaluating these edits. If not, then I don't have to change anything. I'll be performing the approval process ASAP, thanks for your patience. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 13:42, 30 September 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :Yes, Matt, my time for that revision reads 14:02. Also, I distinctly remember making that revision that Howard wanted before he would nominated article. In any event, he has now told you that he is okay with that addition on the Talk page of [[Ammonia production]] and that it was a pre-condition of his nomination. Best regards, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 14:24, 30 September 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::Well that certainly explains it, thanks. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 19:35, 30 September 2008 (CDT)
| |
Where Milt lives it is approximately: 15:43