User talk:Milton Beychok

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hourglass drawing.svg Where Milt lives it is approximately: 17:42




Just created Archive 9

That's why this page is empty at the moment. Milton Beychok 20:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

I moved the exlinks to the exlink page and corrected the bad link. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm sure if I did the exlinks right so please check. I used the * to do the line breaks. Is that what you do here?

Thanks! Mary Ash 05:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Mary Ash

Mary, you used the * correctly on the Related Links subpage ... but I had to correct the format of the hyperlinks to online websites. One does not simply write [url]. Instead, the url is followed by single space and then a title for that website item. For example, [http://adage.com/century/icon04.html] was corrected to this [http://adage.com/century/icon04.html Betty Crocker] which then displays simply as Betty Crocker.
Also, once again, you do not need to sign your name after the four tildes because the tildes sign your name for you and the result is that your name appears twice in your signature (just look at your above signature). Please remember, all you do is sign with four tildes.Milton Beychok 06:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about the tildes. I will refrain from signing. I am used to do doing it that way so it will take a bit of rethinking. :-) I also followed your lead on the exlinks if you check the newest addition. Thanks for your help.
Mary Ash 14:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Photo

This what I posted on my talk page. Lighten up fellas. The name I submitted sure looked like a REAL name to me and let it go at that. It is a lovely photo that I used on my wikiHow account and decided to move over here. The photo came from Flickr and I liked it. Do YOU make time to share anything positive here, or are are you all sitting around waiting to "pounce" on the newbies? I did add the hyperlink showing where the image was found so anyone could search it out. Finally, I did some research and indeed this is a dying wiki. I wonder why... Mary Ash 16:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Serving

Thanks for serving our country in her time of need. Hubby was in similar circumstances except it was Vietnam. Mary Ash 23:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you very much for approving my application, and for the suggestion to expand my bio. I am currently working on this as my first editorial duty :). Thank you again, and I look forward to many happy hours working on this great compendium! Rachael Cantrell 18:39, 3 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: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf 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 15:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If you will look at the photo of 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)
If you check the file history for the Osprey the attribution is incorrect. Credit goes to the U.S. Government not the author as it is public domain and work for hire photo. See: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Image%3AOsprey.png&diff=100693841&oldid=100693698 Mary Ash 18:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. James Darcy is in fact the author of the work and legally entitled to attribution. If you check the copyright line (Template:Osprey.png/credit) you will see that both are credited. --Chris Key 18:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Petroleum naphtha

It's Approved! Thanks for the reminder ;) D. Matt Innis 18:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

How to archive talk pages

Looks terrific, Milt! A lot of tedious work. I've always done it by trial and error and simply copying previous ones. I'll try to find your new instructions the next time I do one! Thanks! Hayford Peirce 19:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Secure confident people encourage not discourage

(This comment was moved to Archive 9 of this Talk page)

Image:Russian Blue kitten.jpg

Hi Milt. You requested that Image:Russian Blue kitten.jpg be deleted. Flor de Azur is the name of the Company that produced the photos [1] and holds the copyright. We have plenty of other photos with an 'unknown' author, and as long as the copyright holder is given we always seem to be okay with this. Are you sure it should be deleted? --Chris Key 09:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris, before I requested speedy deletion, I spent about 30 minutes surfing that company's website (including their photo gallery) and could not find that specific photo of a kitten ... so it is hard for me to convince myself that the company is truly the copyright owner of that particular photo.
Meanwhile, I emailed Franziska Gabriela Waldmann, presumably the copyright owner of the original photo (Russian_Blue_001.gif) to confirm that she is the copyright owner and that she agrees to our using the photo and crediting her as the copyright owner. If she agrees, then I was going to re-instate that photo for use with the Russian Blue article. (P.S.: I asked Mary to send the email on the article's talk page and she did not respond. Instead, she uploaded the photo of the kitten.)
As for the photo of the kitten, I suggest that you email Flor de Azur and confirm that they are indeed the copyright owners. When I send such emails (and I have done so with many photos that I uploaded), I insert a copy of the photo in my email. If they confirm that the photo is theirs, then I would have no objections to letting it remain uploaded. If they do not confirm or state that they don't want us to use it, then I would like to see it deleted as I requested.
Chris, I have uploaded about 270 images and the above procedure is that which I have imposed upon myself before I upload pictures from Wikimedia Commons. Whenever a company has not responded to my requests for permission or has responded negatively, I did not upload the image. If you like, I could send you a copy of my "form letter" that I use.
See CZ:Introduction to CZ for Wikipedians#Images and also CZ:Media Assets Workgroup/Example permission request letters. These are what guided me when I first joined CZ. Milton Beychok 11:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I am happy to go with your judgement on this. I have deleted the photo and left a note on Mary's talk page asking her to obtain permission before re-uploading it. --Chris Key 18:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Help:Index/Map

I think it would be best to direct people to Help:Index rather than Help:Index/Map. The former has been developed to be easy to use, especially for new starters, and the latter is linked to from the main Help:Index page. --Chris Key 20:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris. To be candid, I believe that Help:index/Map provides a better overall view of all the help articles than does Help:Index. I assume you were referring to my welcome message for Nicole Willson. In the future, I will try to remember to point newcomers to both. Milton Beychok 21:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
As I said in the forum, I also prefer the index map -- there it is much easier to search for the topic needed. But others may think differently. We shall see what becomes more popular. And we certainly can have both. --Peter Schmitt 23:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Explosives article

Milt, would you take a preliminary look at explosives and think about what it might need to move to Approval? Certainly, there are some chemical engineering aspects, although specialized ones. Still, this article is about the explosives themselves, and to some extent their detonation systems, not about weapons, commercial blasting, etc.

Do note that the Related Articles section is extensive and has many lemma articles.

Let me know if I could help find reviewers in any areas. Would it be useful to expand the operations in the well-known process of nitroglycerine manufacturing, as an example? Howard C. Berkowitz 19:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will see if I can help with Explosives but it may be 1 or 2 days from now, if that is okay. Milton Beychok 20:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. What application did you use to clean up the thermobaric diagram? Howard C. Berkowitz 16:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
When I used the "camera" tool in Gallegos's pdf, I got the same dark background that you did and could not change it to a white background. However, when I used the "copy" tool, I got a white background. Then I moved it into the Microsoft Paint program (comes with Windows) and cleaned it up in that program. Milton Beychok 16:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I just made some more, final, minor copy edits to explosives should you care to update the version for approval again. David E. Volk 18:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The little chemistry in the article is fine, but I don't really know any of the military jargon to approve the article. So, I am leaning against co-nomination unless you really need me to. David E. Volk 18:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Deepak Mahaan

Hi Milt, I deleted the moved account for Deepak from DEEPAK and renamed him instead. This allows for his contributions to show up under Deepak Mahaan and his user name to show up as Deepak Mahaan instead of DEEPAK MAHAAN. I was able to reconstruct his user credentials, but was unsure what workgroups you granted editorships. Could you take a look and add the categories (or let me know which ones they are and I will do it for you. Thanks in advance! D. Matt Innis 20:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Re smog

Milton, per your request, I started a look-see of your excellent draft of smog at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Milton_Beychok/Sandbox. I couldn't get far as it's late for me here in San Francisco. I will try to get back to it in a few days. You have done a nice job with the topic, and hard work shows through. Anthony.Sebastian 03:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthony. Milton Beychok 03:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Renaming account

Hi Milt, thanks for fixing User:Deepak Mahaan. There are a few problems with moving an account instead of renaming. First, the user has to sign in using the DEEPAK MAHAAN user name instead of Deepak Mahaan. This also means that every time he uses the ~~~~, it will sign his name DEEPAK MAHAAN. Also, contributions will show up only under the DEEPAK MAHAAN account. I am not sure, but I think the email feature also will only work when you go to the DEEPAK MAHAAN user page. So if someone were to go to his user page to email him, it won't work (I don't think). D. Matt Innis 02:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Not being a Constable and not having sysop rights, once an applicant is confirmed, then I can no longer see what categories the applicant was confirmed for. In this case, I still had my written notes about Deepak, crumpled and in my wastebasket ... so all was okay in this instance.
Also, when I place an applicant on Hold and ask him/her to furnish further information, and he/she complies by emailing back to the Constabulary ... I do not get to see what he/she sends back. In other words, as an Editorial Personnel Administrator, I am not really privy to seeing enough information to make my job easier. It would sure help if, every time I place an applicant on hold, either you or Chris were to email me a copy of whatever further information that applicant supplies ... if he/she replies at all. Milton Beychok 02:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you see this page? If you are not blocked, put the user's name in and it should show you the application.
All the responses to your emails to editors that show up on the constable wiki that I saw, I forwarded to you. I think it has pnly been two or three. I also saw some that Hayford responded to and asked that they contact you. I will continue to forward them to you.
You should be the one that gets those emails. Hopefully, we'll fix that. D. Matt Innis 03:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Milt won't be able to see Special:UserCredentials... even I can't. It's Bureaucrats only. --Chris Key 04:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Chris, you're right, I cannot see it. Matt, I only received one response to the constabulary from Hayford and I have not received any from you. In any event, it would help me if you or Chris forward to me any responses that I need to see. Milton Beychok 06:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Milt, I have not seen any at all. I looked back into the history and I haven't seen any going back several months. If any do arrive, we shall definitely forward them to you. The problem is simply that nobody is replying. --Chris Key 15:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I found one. I've forwarded the copy of the email to your cox.net email address that I forwarded to you previously. Let me know if you don't get it. Other than that, the only ones I've seen were responded to by Hayford. There were very few. D. Matt Innis 20:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Matt: That's the one I received ... only I thought Hayford sent it to me. Anyhow, that person was confirmed about 2-3 weeks ago or so. Thanks, Milton Beychok 21:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Explosives

Explosives has been approved! Congratulations on a job well done. --Chris Key 16:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Question about natural gas

It occurs you'd know the answer to a question to a discussion that came up around the house. At what point is an odorant mixed with crude or refined natural gas? This came up in the context of the recent California fire, where my housemate thought a leaking pipeline would always be smelled. He assumes the odorants are added at the well.

I wondered if this was the case, since the raw gas might be reprocessed and the odorant would have to be removed; I assumed it was at the point of the refinery putting commercial natural gas into the distribution system. Perhaps the answer would be useful in an article.

Remember, I'm from New Jersey. We might just think butyl mercaptan is a new natural fragrance. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Odorants are not added to raw natural gas. They are added to the gas after it had been extensively processed (see Natural gas processing for description of that processing). The U.S. Dept. of Transportation and also many state pipeline regulations require odorants to be used in the transmission and distribution pipelines transporting natural gas. In any event, odorants are subject to what is called odorant fade. A leak from an underground gas pipeline would be subject to odorant fade as it seeped up through the soil.
Odorants are added in very small amounts (in the range of 2-5 ppm by volume). Although fairly easily detected if a leak occurs indoors, an outdoors underground leak of odorized gas might very well be undetectible due to odorant fade and/or dispersion due to wind and roadway traffic.
You might be enlightened by reading this. Milton Beychok 00:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S.: Natural gas odorizing is discussed in the "Safety" section of our Natural gas article. Milton Beychok 00:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Volatility, essential oils, aromatherapy

All related in various ways, and I'm looking at all as long as I think that CZ is alive. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Charter ratified by over two-thirds of the vote !

Howard, now you are safe in thinking that CZ is still alive. Milton Beychok 03:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a better phrase

What would you consider an appropriate phrase for the technologies and challenges of dissemination of relatively large amounts of aerosol, especially for biological warfare? I've started with "aerosol dispersion", but I don't like the phrase.

In BW, and to a lesser extent chemical warfare, one of the first problems is temperature control: don't cook the microorganisms, and some chemical agents, especially the nerve agents, ignite easily. Droplet size and controlling static attraction is another. The space available in munitions and aircraft spray tanks is an issue. Prevailing winds and microclimate need to be considered.

Howard C. Berkowitz 20:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Dispersion or dissemination ... but I think dispersion is the best. I cannot think of any others. Milton Beychok 20:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a chemistry author!

Say, Milt, guess what! I wrote an article about chemistry! It can be found at Alkaline pasta. I put it into both the Food Science and Chemistry workshop. I'm sure that it needs some editing, corrections, additions, etc. How can we do this so that eventually you, as a Chemistry Editor, might put it up for approval? I'd sure like to have *one* of my articles Approved someday -- so far the score is: Milt 50, Hayford 0, or thereabouts.... Thanks for taking a look at it! Hayford Peirce 22:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

First let me say, welcome back ! I really missed you. That article about alkaline pasta does have an interesting bit of chemistry and I do have some comments to offer. But my wife is waiting for us to go see a movie. I will try to provide my comments later tonight or tomorrow morning. I'll post them on the article's talk page.
By the way, my score is not 50 approved articles ... its only about 25. Milton Beychok 00:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
That's like Babe Ruth, back in 1920, say, when he hit 59 homers and the rest of the league *combined* hit about 45, saying, "Naw, gee, I really didn't hit all that many...." Enjoy the movie, and I look forward to your comments when you get around to them. Hayford Peirce 01:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks, Milt! Am drinking my coffee and will study your stuff later, but off the top of my head it all makes perfect sense! I had *thought* about using "sodium carbonate" instead of "baked soda" but didn't quite dare to -- wanted to hear from. You gotta remember, my own knowledge of chemistry is H20 -- and I have keep reminding myself that molecules are made up of atoms. Très confusing from my point of view! Will get back to you. Hayford Peirce 15:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, again. I've incorporated all of your suggestions and made a few changes and additions of my own. Any further comments would be greatly welcomed. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 17:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: Welcome!

Thanks for confirming my account. --Michael D. Suarez 12:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted your image

Hi MIlt, I deleted your image and other file! D. Matt Innis 01:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Editorial Council Authors

Milt, yes, I need you and Howard to vote again for Editorial Council Authors. It's fixed now! D. Matt Innis 12:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Editorial_Council_Authors

Archive box

Milt, I saw that you added an archive box (to the Roast turkey article). Do you know that the subpages template -- on the main talk page only -- already contains links to the archived pages? --Peter Schmitt 18:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

:Peter, I was trying to make all of the initial Talk page of Roast turkey (American) easily found. What I ended up doing doesn't seem to work. I think that the Talk page of the new Roast turkey/Recipes is where all of that initial Talk page should be archived and should have a visible archive box. I don't think it should be hidden away where it is too difficult to find. Can you make that happen, please? Milton Beychok 19:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Peter, I was trying to make the archive of all of the original talk page clearly visible and easy to find. Since subpages don't have talk pages, I think the archive belongs at the current Talk:Roast turkey. Can you make that happen, please? Milton Beychok 19:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
What I meant to tell you (in case you are not aware of it) is that the (main) talk page of a main space page always automatically has a "hidden" archive box: Go to "Checklist and archives" in the subpages template and click "Show". --Peter Schmitt 22:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Peter, I am very busy at the moment and cannot answer you at length. My primary concern is that archive box should not be "hidden". It should be easily and visibly accessible. Milton Beychok 22:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Reconstruction

Having discovered this in your sandbox, I scanned with interest. I wonder if we might want to contextualize it with lessons learned in many occupations, perhaps inviting people with direct experience, such as the former Mayor of Stuttgart -- perhaps a Topic Informant from him?

Just as food for thought, you might want to look at some of the lessons learned, or if I should make them more explicit, both in Operation RANKIN, and the needed articles on the occupations of Germany and Japan. I'm not happy with the structure of the Iraq War material, although there's a good deal under Iraq War, insurgency. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I am no historian and I have no intention changing any of the content of the article. I am just going to "wikify" the article by revising Jenson's tedious and lengthy method of referencing (having both a lengthy Bibliography section in the main article as well as an even lengthier list in the Biblio subpage ... and then a lengthy, but cryptic list of "notes" (i.e. references) , that point to the books in the main article Bibliography section for the complete citation. I will replace that 2-step system of referencing with our usual 1-step procedure. I also plan to try and upload the Wikipedia graphics (if I can) for which Jensen just left place holders. Other than that, I won't even attempt to make any content edits.
You might note that I just finished similar wikifying of Black history and Slavery, U.S.. I just got tired of seeing these articles, originally uploaded from Wikipedia, siting there and never being put into CZ format ... so I did just that.
Its easier for me to do those things in my sandbox and then later transfer the finished product to the existing main article. That way, the main article History page won't fill up with all of my multitude of trial-and-error edits while I work out what I want to do. Milton Beychok 21:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. The dejensening and CZ-fying (cough) are quite needed. When it moves to mainspace, I'll try to improve content. I do have a Civil War historian in the house (not me). Howard C. Berkowitz 21:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Going cold turkey

Hi, Milt, could you take a look at: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Roast_turkey#What_do_we_do_now_with_the_turkey_recipes.3F__Asking_for_opinions_and_thoughts.... and offer your considered opinion when you have a moment? Many thanks! Hayford Peirce 22:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that a constable should completely delete the article for the reasons given in the first two sections of CZ:Article Deletion Policy about worthless, inaccurate articles, namely these quotes from that CZ article:
  • the article is of such low quality (in terms of inaccuracy, bias, poor writing, or whatever) that it would be more efficient to start over than to try to clean up the current one (this also can be achieved by blanking, if one does in fact wish to start over)
Perhaps one of the Constable would delete the article "acting on their own recognizance". As a former constable, you know them ... why not ask them to do so? Milton Beychok 22:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Milt, I've taken the liberty of cutting your comments and pasting them into the Talk page of the Roast turkey article. Many thanks for your thoughts! Hayford Peirce 22:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Image

Milton, as I recall you are the expert on image attribution - if you have time would you mind taking a look at this discussion to see if you can shed any light? Cheers. David Finn 07:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

David, I went there and provided all the information that I could recall. It is now 1:00 AM in the morning and I am off to bed. Milton Beychok 08:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't ask for more, thanks for your opinion and have a good night. David Finn 08:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I wished to thank you for your welcome message delivered to me. Richard Lai 20:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Would like to hear your thoughts on Atoms and Molecules article

Milt, I looked at the Atoms and Molecules article. I've got reservations as to whether that article needs expansion. I've opened a section on its Talk page to talk about it and would like to hear your thoughts. Matt Arenas Mercado 02:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments on the article. I have responded there on that Talk page. Regards, Milton Beychok 06:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Milt, I left my thoughts on the article in the talk page. David E. Volk 13:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help. However, I have to agree with David Volk's sentiment that the article isn't necessary. Thinking about it more, even if it was made into a "pointer article" as I suggested, the results from the "Search" box gives, practically, the same results. I hope you won't mind. Matt Arenas Mercado 14:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Milton_Beychok&oldid=383700"