User talk:Raymond Arritt: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Milton Beychok
imported>Raymond Arritt
(Removing all content from page)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ewelcome}} [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 03:20, 15 June 2007 (CDT)


==Welcome!==
{{awelcome}} See [[CZ:Discipline Workgroups]] to add yourself to whichever author workgroups you choose. -- [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 18:20, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
{{Workgroup introduction}}
== Images for Global warming ==
Dear Raymond,
thanks for your terrific job in [[Global warming]]! We were desperately looking for a real climatologist, and here you are!
I received a message from [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] which I copy-and-paste from my talk page:
''If you wish to use images from IPCC reports, you can point me to the links for the images and I will see if they can be used of if they of such quality that we should seek permission, which I'd do.  —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 01:05, 3 August 2007 (CDT)''
I suppose you might find this useful, if you are still working on the article.
Cheers, --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 01:58, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
:Oh, my. I was away for a while and this thing got away from me.  [[User:Raymond Arritt|Raymond Arritt]] 08:35, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
== Global warming & "dispute watch" ==
Dr. Arritt, we haven't "e-met" yet, but let me just add that I'm very glad that a real expert is on hand to guide [[global warming]].
I should explain what I did on the talk page, however.  We are very motivated to find a way to keep talk pages on controversial topics from descending into the usual sort of Internet "flame fests."  Toward this end, we've studied how to prevent this "edit warring"--see [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1117.0.html]--and out of that, I've produced a ''tentative'' solution, involving something I'm calling a "Dispute Watch."  If an article seems particularly controversial, and people are constantly engaging themselves in the controversy, instead of looking precisely at how the article should read, we will be able to say that the article is under dispute watch.  This means that, after an article enters dispute watch, all ''argumentative'' comments have to be addressed directly to some issue about the wording of the article.  For details, see: [[CZ:Dispute Watch]].
Well, it just so happens that the very first person who acted contrary to the dispute watch in any case was...you!  Please don't take this the wrong way--and please help us to evaluate the success of the "dispute watch" initiative.
What I think I'll do is simply move all of the pre-dispute watch comments to the archive, so people aren't tempted to reply to them. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:11, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
:Hi Larry, I guess it's always a distinction to be first at something!  I've been away from CZ for a while and was unaware of the "dispute watch" initiative. Looking at the "dispute watch" page I find it rather confusing, and in all honesty believe it will be unworkable. I'll stay away for a while until things cool down. [[User:Raymond Arritt|Raymond Arritt]] 10:07, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
Please don't--your input particularly at this stage is essential.  Initiating a dispute watch is intended to immediately cool things down.  I'm disappointed that the dispute watch page is confusing, but I accept it--I'll have to do something about that.  Also, I admit that the concept may indeed be unworkable; but maybe not.  The intention, in any case, is to ensure that you aren't having to battle with ideologues and people who simply want to argue, not work on the article.  Again, the hope is that this will instantly cool things down; let's see!
::Further, when do know when it is unnecessary to have the so-called "dispute watch" and how should content disputes be handled whilst not under "dispute watch"? [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 10:39, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
Only articles that have [[:Category:Dispute Watch]] attached to them are under dispute watch.  Otherwise, content disputes are handled the way polite adults handle disputes; there is no formal process, beyond the Constabulary stepping in, as necessary, to rein in incivility. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 10:53, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
All right, I have worked some more on [[CZ:Dispute Watch]].  I ''think'' it should be a bit clearer now.  Reviewing it, I do have to apologize--it really ''was'' unclear.  Probably still is, but it's perhaps a bit better. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:39, 3 August 2007 (CDT)
Just wanted to let you know, Dr. Arritt, that ''you were right,'' and I was wrong; the Dispute Watch experiment was a failure.  [[Global warming]] is officially no longer under dispute watch. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 10:25, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
:This is a case where I'm not pleased to have been right. I think that something in the spirit of dispute watch could be useful, so let's keep thinking. Maybe "special oversight" or the like, where editors/stewards put the article high on their radar. [[User:Raymond Arritt|Raymond Arritt]] 10:12, 11 August 2007 (CDT)
::I think that if people adhere to the professionalism ideals that Citizendium strives for, there'd be little need for excessive oversight. If there is a genuine behavioral issue, I believe the constabulary will be able to dictate the necessary actions. If there is a genuine content issue, the editor(s) should be able to resolve the issue. [[User:Benjamin Seghers|Benjamin Seghers]] 12:56, 11 August 2007 (CDT)
Yes, one might well think that, but it hasn't been our experience that problems can be uniformly avoided.  The central problem here is that, sometimes, pests can be perfectly polite and hence not "covered" by Constabulary-enforced rules.  It's definitely a problem. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:04, 11 August 2007 (CDT)
== Any approvals? ==
Hi Raymond, do you believe is there any Earth Sciences article worth our attention, i.e., close to be ready for approval? My guess is, no, we don't have such articles. [[Global warming]] actually looks quite good, but not nearly as good as that on Wikipedia.
If you got the same idea on our article's average status -that is, far from approval-, may I ask you why, in your opinion? Should we do something to make things going better?
Cheers, --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 06:31, 16 September 2007 (CDT)
:I agree, there aren't any articles that are close to approval. The main problem is that there simply aren't enough people working on them.  I've been tweaking the [[Global warming]] article from time to time but don't want it to be "my" article; I'd rather be a resource for others. By all appearances Citizendium does not yet have a critical mass of contributors for this topic area. I could give my personal opinions as to why this is so, but this probably isn't the best venue for that. [[User:Raymond Arritt|Raymond Arritt]] 11:08, 19 September 2007 (CDT)
== Core Articles ==
Hi Raymond,
I started filling up a list of the 100 most important (and missing) articles in Earth Sciences. However, the list is getting unbalanced in favor of paleontology, stratigraphy, and geology overall. Could you add to the list, expecially in the fields of atmospheric and oceanographic sciences? The list is at [[CZ:Core Articles]]. Thanks, --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 14:02, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
: I added a few obvious ones; possibly more to come.  [[User:Raymond Arritt|Raymond Arritt]] 15:47, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
== Atmosphere... ==
Hi Raymond,
I saw your articles about the different layers of the [[atmosphere]] and wondered if you would want to write one for the [[atmosphere]] itself, too, as this is still missing. Links to your articles ([[Stratosphere]], [[Troposphere]], [[Homosphere]], [[Mesosphere]], [[Heterosphere]], [[Thermosphere]] ) could be included there, you know.
[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?action=edit&preload=Template%3AText+for+simple+start&editintro=&title=Atmosphere&create=Start+a+new+article Start it here directly!].
Thanks, [[User:Jochen Wendebaum|Jochen Wendebaum]] 02:28, 20 November 2007 (CST)
: Well? ;-) [[User:Jochen Wendebaum|Jochen Wendebaum]] 02:45, 4 December 2007 (CST)
::Maybe later. For the moment -- final exams, two conferences next week, college promotion and tenure committee, proposal deadline coming up soon...  [[User:Raymond Arritt|Raymond Arritt]] 10:05, 4 December 2007 (CST)
== Please read this comment by Larry Sanger in the Forums ==
Raymond, before making any further edits to the [[Global Warming]] article, '''please''' read the comment made by Larry Sanger (our Editor-in-chief) in the Forums at [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1846.0.html here]. I think we could all benefit by heeding his advice (myself included). [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 21:18, 9 September 2008 (CDT)

Revision as of 20:33, 29 September 2008

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Raymond_Arritt&oldid=131754"