User talk:Petréa Mitchell/Archive1

From Citizendium
< User talk:Petréa Mitchell
Revision as of 15:10, 23 April 2007 by imported>Larry Sanger
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome

Citizendium Getting Started
Quick Start | About us | Help system | Start a new article | For Wikipedians  


Tasks: start a new article • add basic, wanted or requested articles • add definitionsadd metadata • edit new pages

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start, and see Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, our help system and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any user or the editors for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun!

You can find some more information about our collaboration groups if you follow this link CZ:Workgroups.You can always ask me on my talk page or others about how to proceed or any other question you might have.


Kind Regards, Robert Tito |  Talk  18:28, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

Thanks-from the USA!

As we have said on the CZ:Notice_Board (April 1, 2007), thanks for fixing that article. Everybody appreciates it. Nancy Sculerati 09:15, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

You're welcome! For those coming in late who are as puzzled as I was, you have to read back to March 29th on the notice board, where United States of America was pointed out as an example of an article that didn't have a workgroup. Lesson for everyone: watch the notice board! You, too, can be a winner! Petréa Mitchell 21:52, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

John Logie Baird

Deaar Petréa Mitchell: Please change your erroneous tags on the article John Logie Baird. There have been substantial changes, and considerable thought has gone into the current and future iterations of this article. I am not a fan of these tags, but if they must be placed, at least let them be accurate, lest an important step forward end up being deleted or misrecognized. I would change them myself, but don't have a grasp of (or really an interest in) figuring out how to use them, but if you could change the tag to reflect the substantial changes, I'd be grateful. Russell Potter

That kind of talk can only lead to tutorials. Continued your talk page... Petréa Mitchell 20:50, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
Petréa -- thanks so much -- I think I am getting the hang of it! Russell Potter

Untagging articles

Hi Petréa,

Just a quick note -- I noticed this with a couple of articles I've worked on, and it might be the case with some others you're untagging as "Live" -- please have a look at the article's history page, as in some cases a fair amount of work has been done, although not instantly detectable by a quick visual glance at the CZ and WP versions. In other cases, even though it appears that the article has been ported directly from WP, you might need to double-check, as in at least one instance I know of (The Frozen Deep) there are articles which *started* on CZ, and were then ported to WP, so that the WP looks the same because it was copied from the CZ, not vice-versa. Thanks!! Russell Potter 13:23, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

I am in fact doing this, and have added the CZ Live tag to a couple articles today on the basis of comments in the history. If there is nothing to give me direction in the history or on the talk pages, I will guess that it started on Wikipedia. Checking differences, between the pages, the guideline at The Big Cleanup is three significant changes from the WP article to make it live. I may be using a more conservative definition of "significant" than you. I'm not going to put up a big fight over the "Live" tag going back on-- if the articles are being worked on actively enough for someone to notice changes this quickly, then they'll probably be "Live" by everyone's definition soon enough. Petréa Mitchell 13:34, 22 April 2007 (CDT)
Hi Petréa -- hey, you're doing important maintenance here, and sometimes seeing an entry that I'd worked on before get tagged makes me realize I ought to get back and do some more work on it :-)
But the article that moved me to write, Minik Wallace, did have several edits that would, I think, be considered substantial: first it was moved to CZ, then tagged as live, then I made a major edit with eight new phrases and nine new sentences at various points, and then a minor edit, then a copyedit with some rewording, then added a new phrase in the first paragraph, then four more relatively minor edits (one of which added a wikilink, one of which added an alternative spelling of the subject's name). Maybe it was the fact that one of the saves I made contained so many changes, but scattered about in different parts of the entry, that made it seem less substantial.
I just think it's important to be cautious when one sees an entry that has had some attention from a CZ author or editor before one just untags it. The article checklist can signal when more work is needed (and will flag anyone who has the entry on their watchlist), without the risk of having the most recent version of an article lost in a cleanup. Russell Potter 14:46, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

Disambiguation pages

Hi Petréa, I've been meaning to tell you "thanks" for all your work on the Big Cleanup. It's been great to see the proportion of checklisted articles go up, and you have a lot to do with that.

I noticed that you placed a checklist on Talk:Georgia (disambiguation). We shouldn't put checklists on disambiguation pages at all; they're not articles. (I'm open to debate on this point, I admit it isn't obvious.) --Larry Sanger 16:10, 23 April 2007 (CDT)