User talk:Milton Beychok

New Draft of the Week - formatting test

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

As you know by now, I really like what you have done to the AOTW formatting. I can see that you have not yet completely done the same thing for the NDOTW. I would be pleased to help by being a guinea pig but I don't understand what you want me to do. Please spell out in detail what you want me to do ... and I will try it. Milton Beychok 05:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, in principle, it means having a closer look at the documentation of {{Candidate}} and following the steps indicated there, perhaps occasionally peeping into the examples given, searching for occurences of ""onlyinclude" and "includeonly" (in pairs, the first without, the second with leading "/"). It also means surrounding "{{subpages}}" by such a pair of "noinclude" (without and with "/"). Finally, replacing "rpl" in the nomination table by "Candidate" should do the trick. If you have specific problems, please ask again or send me a screenshot. --Daniel Mietchen 05:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

My edits to air preheater were meant as practice, but for you rather than me. With a little help from Caesar, you now have another sample to look at. Please try to apply a similar treatment to the other NDotW candidates. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 14:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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