imported>Drew R. Smith |
|
| (182 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ==Welcome to the talk page for the Approvals Manager==
| |
| Please start a new section for each new topic. Resolved discussions will be moved to an archive. | | Please start a new section for each new topic. Resolved discussions will be moved to an archive. |
| | {{archive box|auto=long}} |
|
| |
|
| == Homeopathy reapproval == | | == [[Randomized controlled trial]] == |
|
| |
|
| Hi, Joe, could you take a look at the last comment section at [[Talk:Homeopathy/Draft]] and tell us what you think needs to be done. Ie, how many Editors do we need, and who can they be? As far as Constable approval, I've been working on the draft, so I'm out. Matt *hasn't* worked on the draft, but was, I believe, an Editor for the *Approved* version. I'm sure that there are other technical aspects also to be considered. Thanks! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
| | From my talk page: I dropped the ball! So glad you are here :) We need a date in the metadata and there is an issue on the talk page. [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User_talk%3ARobert_Badgett&action=historysubmit&diff=100780572&oldid=100779195 see Robert's talk page]]. |
|
| |
|
| == refusal of an approved article to go away from "to approve" list ==
| | :I certified approval of version dated 04:39 26 January 2012. This is a re-approval of a previously approved version. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 13:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Hi Joe,
| | ==Priorities in Economics, Politics and History== |
| | I should be inclined to give first priorities to articles that serve as portals to others. At the basic level they would, of course, be [[Economics]], [[Politics]] and [[History]]. Equally important are some higher-level portals such as [[Financial system]], [[Great Recession]], [[Fiscal policy]] and [[Europe]]. If topicality is considered important, you might consider [[Eurozone crisis]] and [[Arab Spring]]. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 14:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial/draft persists in showing on the To Approve List that the Kops look at. I tried putting a null into it and saving, but that didn't change anything. Is there something in the metadata that is screwing up its disappearance? [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 22:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
| | :That certainly makes sense to me. I'll have a look myself, but do you think any of those top-level articles are ready or nearly ready for approval? The articles on current issues might be hard, since they will presumably continue to be updated as things unfold. Since approved articles preempt drafts as the first thing visitors see, such articles would need to be frequently re-approved. -- Joe Quick ([[User:Approval_Manager|Approval Manager]]) 15:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| :You know, I tried to fix that. It's happened before and gave me trouble then too, but I can't remember what I did. I'll look again, I guess. --([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]] 15:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
| | == Approval 'Applied Consciousness Sciences' article == |
|
| |
|
| ::Got it! It was the difference between "Draft" and "draft" --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]] 17:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
| | Hi, I'd like to request for the approval of the 'Applied Consciousness Sciences' article. This way I know what needs to be corrected. --[[Carlo]] |
|
| |
|
| :::Okie, I understand that the article itself is called "Draft", with a capital D, but just where did you make the fix, so I can do it myself if necessary? Thanks! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
| | == Various computing articles == |
|
| |
|
| ::::Article categories, including the toapprove category, are placed on the article talk page by the subpages template. THey don't update until the talk page is edited. Usually, it only takes a minor edit to the talk page to get rid of the toapprove category after approval. I tried that but it didn't work until I figured out that I had to edit ".../draft" with a lowercase 'd'. --[[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]] 02:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
| | There are a number listed on the "ready for approval" page, at least one old enough to have been added by Howard. Most I cannot approve because they are my writing. For the Howard one, I've commented on the talk page. |
|
| |
|
| :::::Okie, with '''that''' knowledge, I guess I'll just let '''you''' worry about this in the future, hehe.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 02:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
| | Two I'd particularly like to see move along are [[Block cipher]] and Cypherpunk. Both are mainly my writing, both were previously approved, but both have had a fair bit of change since. Cypherpunk is irritating; WP imported most of our article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Citizendium_Porting#Articles] but both have changed since then and their current version is noticably better than our approved version. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 01:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| == Another issue -- please see the new Forum topic ==
| | :Sandy, I will look into that, and get back to you for thoughts you may have on how to facilitate moving the process along for specific articles. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 01:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Bibliographies in Approved articles apparently aren't protected!
| | You asked on my talk page which articles might be ready, and who could approve. [[Block cipher]] is one; Peter Schmitt was an approving editor for version 1. I think Pat Palmer is the only active computers editor other than me. |
|
| |
|
| See: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2675.0.html [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
| | That is a large article. It might be quick & simple to approve some shorter ones such [[Alice and Bob]], [[Rot 13]] or [[Caesar cipher]]. The most interesting short one is Cryptology. On Wikipedia, that is just a redirect to cryptography. Here. there was a lot of discussion, see the talk page. I think it is fine as it is. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 02:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Good timing! I've been wanting to address that. I replied in the forum thread. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]] 14:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC))
| | == Portal articles == |
|
| |
|
| == Null edits ==
| | May I draw your attention again to the portal articles [[Politics]] and [[Economics]] ? Both are well-developed with large numbers of wikilinks. You might also consider [[Europe]] on the same grounds. I should be willing to introduce any changes that are deemed necessary. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 10:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| You don't have to [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk:Free_statistical_software&curid=100102395&diff=100493022&oldid=100491530 do this], you know, you can just click edit and then click save. It won't show anything in the history, but will update all relevant categories, lists of links, etc. It's called a null edit.<br />
| | :Thanks, Nick, will do. |
| sorry if you know this, and I'm misunderstanding what you were doing.<br />
| |
| [[User:Caesar Schinas|Caesar Schinas]] 13:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| :Recently, null edits have had the effect of deleting a lot of text. There was a discussion about this on someone's talk page, though I don't remember where. It doesn't always happen, but it's annoying when it does, so I've gotten into the habit of simply adding a space somewhere. Thanks for your note though, it's good to have someone around who understands the technical stuff. Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 14:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC) | | :For each of those three articles, will you give me a list names of users that I can ask for comments on the article, including an Editor or two among the article's workgroup categories. |
|
| |
|
| ::Funny, I haven't seen that, but I'll be more careful in future. | | :Thanks. —[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 16:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC), Approval Manager |
| ::Sorry if I seemed to be teaching my grandmother to suck eggs...
| |
| ::[[User:Caesar Schinas|Caesar Schinas]] 15:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| == Drugs banned from the Olympics ==
| | ::The only two names that come to mind are Roger Lohman and Russell Jones. As politics and history editor, Roger is well qualified to asssess both [[Politics]] and [[Europe]] - and Russell might be persuaded to add his comments. On the face of it [[Economics]] presents a difficulty because - as far as I know - I am the only available member of the economics workgroup. However, an assessment of [[Economics]] requires no knowledge of economics because it is no more than a portal. And, although Russell does not claim to be an economist, I note that it says in his talk page that economics was a component of his PhD thesis. So the two of them together might provide assessments of all three articles. [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 09:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC) |
| | |
| Joe, I am considering nominating [[Drugs banned from the Olympics]] for approval. I did delete 2-3 redundant line spaces and I revised the Related Links subpage somewhat (copy edits and added a link or two). Am I still eligble to nominate the article? [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 18:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :By the way, I have been an Engineering Editor ever since I joined. Its being a Chemistry Editor that was just granted. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 18:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC) | |
| | |
| ::You should be fine on nominating [[Drugs banned from the Olympics]]. Those certainly don't look like anything more than editorial changes to me. I knew that you were an Engineering editor before (Earth Science too, right?) but it seems like all of those articles are by you! I figured there would be material in the Chemistry workgroup that maybe someone else wrote. :-) --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 18:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::Once you've nominated the article, I'm going to suggest it to some biology editors too. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony Sebastian]] is an editor in Biology and in Health Sciences, so he might be a good person to approach. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 18:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::Joe, I will review the article as soon as I can, check references, etc., and get back to you here. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 03:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::::Joe, I reviewed the article. I can co-approve this article, but believe it could use a few edits to render it both more user friendly and more informative, the former by defining certain words, the latter by adding more explanations why certain drugs banned, i.e., some more mechanistic explanations.
| |
| | |
| Some items that caught my attention:
| |
| | |
| Intro: define ‘doping’
| |
| | |
| Banned androgenic agents: consider reversing order of first and second sentences
| |
| | |
| In respect of the lists of banned androgenic steroids: define words ‘exogenous’ and ‘endogenous’
| |
| | |
| Paragraph on blood doping should have subheader; otherwise out of place’
| |
| | |
| Hormones and related substances: first sentence should start with word ‘certain’, and should define ‘peptide’
| |
| | |
| Beta-2 agonists: should say why banned, physiological mechanism.
| |
| | |
| Hormone antagonists and modulators: Needs some physiology (why ban aromatase inhibitors?)
| |
| | |
| Diuretics and masking agents: not clear re ‘masking agent’ versus ‘diuretic’
| |
| | |
| “The cannabinoids marijuana and hashish are also banned.” Why?
| |
| | |
| Why are glucocorticoids and beta blockers banned?
| |
| | |
| [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 15:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Thanks, Anthony. I directed David Volk's attention to your comments, since he's the primary author of the article. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 23:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::Joe, I did not look to see who contributed to the article, just reviewed it on its merits alone, as I judged them. David Volk writes outstandingly for CZ. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 00:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::You're certainly right about that! I figured he'd be the most likely to respond quickly to our comments since he has already put so much work into it. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 02:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::Joe, I found David's changes satisfactory. I give my co-approval. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 00:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Another nomination ==
| |
| | |
| Joe, take a look [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:David_E._Volk#I_would_like_to_nominate_Ketoconazole_for_approval here]. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 03:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Great! I'll be going out of town for a week starting Sunday, but it looks like you should be in good shape without me. --[[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]] 23:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == two articles ==
| |
| | |
| Hi Joe, there are two articles at: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Articles_to_Approve that I don't understand. Could you check the various dates and History of these and try to make some sense of what's going on? Thanks! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Hayford, I replied on your talk page. --Joe (04:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)) [[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]
| |
| | |
| == [[Henry's Law]] ==
| |
| | |
| Hi Joe, see [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User_talk:Milton_Beychok&oldid=100511181#Boo-boo this]. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 02:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == [[Hawaiian alphabet]] ==
| |
| | |
| Hi, can you take a look at [[Hawaiian alphabet]], and see if it is ready, or almost ready, for approval?[[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 04:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Hi, Drew. I see that you already left a message for at least one of our linguistics editors. It seems like the article is still incomplete. What have been the impacts and consequences of the Hawaiian alphabet? Does anyone use it now? What about the indigenous nationalist movement? --[[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]] 13:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::"What have been the impacts and consequences of the Hawaiian alphabet?"-- As far as I have found through my research the only impact or consequence was that the bible (and other publications) were translated into Hawaiian. I could perhaps go into detail about how the translated bible helped to reshape politics in Hawaii, but the reshaping was due more to the way the missionaries used the bible, and christianity, than an impact of the translation itself. I have gone into more detail about the impact of the translated bible in [[Hawaiian bible]], but this doesn't seem relevant to an article on the alphabet itself.
| |
| | |
| ::"Does anyone use it now?"-- Not really. It's sorta used for street names, but one could make the argument that a street name (such as kapi`olani blvd) uses the english alphabet for a hawaiian word... The only other real use of it is through nostalgic groups trying to revive the language. Unfortunately the alphabet isn't really different enough from the english alphabet to distinguish it when used in modern times. How would I put something like that in the article though?
| |
| | |
| ::"What about the indigenous nationalist movement?"-- I'm not sure exaclty what you are reffering to. Living in hawaii, I can only assume you are talking about the various groups attempting to either A) return public schools (or at least the kamehameha schools) to teaching in Hawaiian language, or B)return Hawaii to being a sovereign state. I've never heard of any of these groups being called "the indigenous nationalist movement" though. But I think those would be better represented in an aricle on Hawaii or the Hawaiian language (or both).
| |
| | |
| ::Again, I can answer the questions fairly easily, but I'm not sure how to encorporate that information into the article without it being a "grab bag of facts".[[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 07:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Starting series on their way ==
| |
| | |
| I'd like to start several series of articles on the way to approval, starting with the hopefully less controversial top-level. One good starting place is [[interrogation]] and a more challenging one is [[extrajudicial detention]]. They have "peer" or even higher-level articles such as [[eduction]] and [[elicitation]], as well as going down into national and period policy.
| |
| | |
| Are the workgroups realistic in terms of coverage and available editors? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 15:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Finding a law editor could be a challenge. There is a lawyer at the University of Chicago who chairs the program in human rights and who likes me a whole lot who I might be able to convince to help us out. She's awfully busy though, so I don't want to waste a favor unless we're '''''really''''' confident that we've done the best job possible.
| |
| | |
| :Otherwise, Roger Lohmann and Shamira Gelbman can probably cover politics and Daniel Mietchen can probably cover psychology, but I don't think these topics are within the fields of expertise for any of them. I'm at work now and waiting for a student who should be here in a few minutes, but I'll try to give it some attention tonight. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 16:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::Could we consider using the available editors for the primary tasks, but getting non-citizen law experts to submit reviews to you? We're going to have the problem of expertise at the workgroup level of granularity; while I may be an expert on [[routing]], I'm not on [[HTML]], although both are Computers. In like manner, I know a lot about some military and intelligence technologies and periods, but, since I've been on a horse twice, I'm not the best to be writing about horse cavalry.
| |
| | |
| ::Apropos of that last, relatively few of the [[United States Army Special Forces]] personnel sent into Afghanistan to fight with the [[Northern Alliance]] could ride, and were severely chafed. Since there was no opportunity to measure them for chaps, the eventual solution was to airdrop heavy-duty pantyhose. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
Please start a new section for each new topic. Resolved discussions will be moved to an archive.
From my talk page: I dropped the ball! So glad you are here :) We need a date in the metadata and there is an issue on the talk page. see Robert's talk page].
- I certified approval of version dated 04:39 26 January 2012. This is a re-approval of a previously approved version. Anthony.Sebastian 13:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Priorities in Economics, Politics and History
I should be inclined to give first priorities to articles that serve as portals to others. At the basic level they would, of course, be Economics, Politics and History. Equally important are some higher-level portals such as Financial system, Great Recession, Fiscal policy and Europe. If topicality is considered important, you might consider Eurozone crisis and Arab Spring. Nick Gardner 14:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- That certainly makes sense to me. I'll have a look myself, but do you think any of those top-level articles are ready or nearly ready for approval? The articles on current issues might be hard, since they will presumably continue to be updated as things unfold. Since approved articles preempt drafts as the first thing visitors see, such articles would need to be frequently re-approved. -- Joe Quick (Approval Manager) 15:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Approval 'Applied Consciousness Sciences' article
Hi, I'd like to request for the approval of the 'Applied Consciousness Sciences' article. This way I know what needs to be corrected. --Carlo
Various computing articles
There are a number listed on the "ready for approval" page, at least one old enough to have been added by Howard. Most I cannot approve because they are my writing. For the Howard one, I've commented on the talk page.
Two I'd particularly like to see move along are Block cipher and Cypherpunk. Both are mainly my writing, both were previously approved, but both have had a fair bit of change since. Cypherpunk is irritating; WP imported most of our article [1] but both have changed since then and their current version is noticably better than our approved version. Sandy Harris 01:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sandy, I will look into that, and get back to you for thoughts you may have on how to facilitate moving the process along for specific articles. Anthony.Sebastian 01:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You asked on my talk page which articles might be ready, and who could approve. Block cipher is one; Peter Schmitt was an approving editor for version 1. I think Pat Palmer is the only active computers editor other than me.
That is a large article. It might be quick & simple to approve some shorter ones such Alice and Bob, Rot 13 or Caesar cipher. The most interesting short one is Cryptology. On Wikipedia, that is just a redirect to cryptography. Here. there was a lot of discussion, see the talk page. I think it is fine as it is. Sandy Harris 02:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Portal articles
May I draw your attention again to the portal articles Politics and Economics ? Both are well-developed with large numbers of wikilinks. You might also consider Europe on the same grounds. I should be willing to introduce any changes that are deemed necessary. Nick Gardner 10:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Nick, will do.
- For each of those three articles, will you give me a list names of users that I can ask for comments on the article, including an Editor or two among the article's workgroup categories.
- Thanks. —Anthony.Sebastian 16:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC), Approval Manager
- The only two names that come to mind are Roger Lohman and Russell Jones. As politics and history editor, Roger is well qualified to asssess both Politics and Europe - and Russell might be persuaded to add his comments. On the face of it Economics presents a difficulty because - as far as I know - I am the only available member of the economics workgroup. However, an assessment of Economics requires no knowledge of economics because it is no more than a portal. And, although Russell does not claim to be an economist, I note that it says in his talk page that economics was a component of his PhD thesis. So the two of them together might provide assessments of all three articles. Nick Gardner 09:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
