User talk:Mike Johnson

Chiropractic

Hello Mike, Could you possibly stop by the Chiropractic article and help us approve the article? Larry is out for the holidays and asked that we work to get this approved without him. I figure we can work through this together if you've got the time. The article has gone through the ToApprove process and is just ready for the last step - whatever that might be;) Thanks, --Matt Innis (Talk) 18:24, 27 December 2006 (CST)

Matt, absolutely. I'll be done with holiday travels in about 5 hours and will see what I can do then. --Mike Johnson 12:45, 28 December 2006 (CST)

That would be great! I just asked User:Sarah Tuttle to help, too, but no response.. yet;) See you there! Thanks!!! --Matt Innis (Talk) 13:02, 28 December 2006 (CST)

Vandalism

Ill let you handle these vandal reversals as Im a big ineperienced Zachs left messages at my talk page

David Tribe 01:40, 7 February 2007 (CST)

Looks like we've got things under control. Good speed on banning vandals, by the way. --Mike Johnson 02:19, 7 February 2007 (CST)

Decided to concentrate on something I knew how to do. Itas good to work in teams too. I may have lockedout one non vandal Chen serov, but only for a few days David Tribe 02:21, 7 February 2007 (CST)

vandals are active Robert Tito | Talk 00:55, 9 February 2007 (CST)

Drop me an email whenever you need help and I'm not around- I'll try to be here post haste. --Mike Johnson 17:03, 9 February 2007 (CST)

off for the day, the fortress is yours Robert Tito | Talk 00:06, 10 February 2007 (CST)

Vertebral subluxation

Mike, would you do the honors of approving the Vertebral subluxation article? I think we've worked through all the kinks. It has been stable, so I think it is time! This time I only asked you;) Matt Innis (Talk) 11:17, 14 February 2007 (CST)

Sounds good- I'm on it! --Mike Johnson 13:16, 14 February 2007 (CST)

I noticed Gareth made some more changes, make sure and get the newest version! Matt Innis (Talk) 13:38, 14 February 2007 (CST)

Matt- all done! Let me know if there are any loose ends you'd like me to tie up. --Mike Johnson 13:42, 14 February 2007 (CST)

Yeah! Good Job!! Thanks Mike. Hopefully we're done with that one for awile;) Matt Innis (Talk) 13:44, 14 February 2007 (CST)

Message

Note the message for you on my talk page - just in case you aren't watching. Thanks. --Nicholas Kaye-Smith 18:49, 14 February 2007 (CST)

Do you know if user javascript is allowed on this wiki (that is, if localsettings.php has $wgAllowUserJs = true;)? This could be the reason why none of my javascript is working. --Nicholas Kaye-Smith 21:05, 15 February 2007 (CST)

I'm not sure if user javascript is turned on-- Special:Version doesn't seem to say. I've filed a bugrep about it- thanks. --Mike Johnson 23:30, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Any feedback? I can't find it on the forge. Thanks, --Nicholas Kaye-Smith 15:16, 18 February 2007 (CST)

No feedback yet-- I get the feeling the tech guys are working lots on anti-vandalism login procedures for the time being. I'll let you know if I hear anything (and feel free to file the user javascript issue on the forge, too). Cheers, --Mike Johnson 15:24, 18 February 2007 (CST)

It better NOT be allowed to run incase you want unsupported features arise. Robert Tito | Talk 21:09, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Input needed on how to educate more people on category importance

http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,539.0.html -Tom Kelly (Talk) 19:42, 15 February 2007 (CST)

HGT V1.1

Ive discovered one errant period in the Hor gene transfer article. At the site of citation no 1.

It looks like this .(1). when it should look like this .(1)

I've corrected this in the draft.

To my way of thinking, you as constable can go in and get the period, save with a minor m change and that's it.

It a bit tricky as ref (1) is several papers, but you just delete the last period.

I cannot touch it as the last time I did something like that there was all sorts of fuss.;0)

David Tribe 06:15, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Done. :) --Mike Johnson 08:45, 26 February 2007 (CST)

-) :) :o) David Tribe 03:42, 27 February 2007 (CST) Thanks

main page protected or not

Mike

why unprotecting the main page? any contributions can be placed and moderated on the talk page - and that is an open page. Not having vandals right now doesn't mean no vandals tomorrow. cheers, Robert Tito | Talk

Ah, it seems vandalism isn't really an issue with our new account system, and Larry expressed a wish that we leave the main page unprotected so people can change it, and also because it's a sign of what's special about CZ that we can leave the main page unprotected. I'm not sure how important it is, but... --Mike Johnson 20:17, 26 February 2007 (CST)

You're right, Mike--you didn't unprotect it, either, but I just did. Rob, hey, if any vandal is idiotic enough to vandalize the front page, he'll be doing us a service by announcing to the world that he's a vandal. Then we can ban him before he does some more subtle vandalism.

Besides, Rob, we have never and I mean never had any vandalism during our periods of by-hand registration. --Larry Sanger 20:22, 26 February 2007 (CST) let me see if I can change that :))))))))

Thanks!!

Hi Mike, thanks for figuring out that I'd gotten blocked by mistake! I was just trying to figure out how to reach you! Russell Potter

Russell- no problem. Looks like a clever vandal! Gotta pow-wow with the tech guys on this one.... --Mike Johnson 19:22, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Wikipedia Signpost

Mike,

I've made some responses and some edits over at Wikipedia (removing as much of my opinion as possible, and toning down the language some), but I thought of something that you might be interested in. How about putting together a short piece on the plans and ongoing changes at CZ? This might be something that we could publish in the Signpost, alongside (hopefully) my report.

Also, I'm very curious about why Nancy Sculerati's userpage is a red link. Did she leave, and if so, will bios usually be deleted users leave? Considering how much she contributed, it's a definite liability not being able to track down who that author is when a reader is investigating the expertise behind an article.

Yours in discourse, --Sage Ross 14:08, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Sage, sounds intriguing. I might need a bit of time to think it over. I take it such a piece would be due Monday? Also, I'm wondering about whether swooping into a Wikipedia community news forum and talking about Citizendium might cause some problems... I'd enjoy writing the piece, and I think many people would enjoy the perspective, but as I primarily volunteer on Citizendium it might rub some people the wrong way. Let me know your thoughts.

Cheers, --Mike Johnson 15:59, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

I'll run it by Michael Snow (who I think is the acting editor this week), but I don't think many people would get offended. At least, its bound to offend fewer people than mine. Yes, it would be due Monday.--Sage Ross 17:52, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Sounds good. I'll be cramped for time this weekend, so if it would be possible to aim for the next Signpost, that'd be ideal-- but if not, I'll see what I can rustle up. --Mike Johnson 18:02, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

If you're up for it, we'd love to have a piece from you. If time is going to be an issue, we can push both pieces until next week.--Sage Ross 18:18, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

In that case I'd be very happy to write a piece for the Signpost. Pushing the pieces back a week would make things a lot simpler for me, so if that's an option I'll take it. All the best, --Mike Johnson 19:03, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Great! Leave a note here when you have it ready. (Putting in on a Wikipedia user subpage would be best.)--Sage Ross 19:22, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Sage, your article is wishful thinking on your part.  :-) It would be great if Mike were to reply. About Nancy's red link: you raise a good point. Why didn't you raise it before writing this article, instead of using it to score a cheap point? There are many other easy but ineffective criticisms you could make, after all, which stem from the fact that this is a new project and we haven't worked out all the policies yet. --Larry Sanger 22:27, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Larry, the article has not yet been published, and the bit about Sculerati has been removed in any case, since it seems the deletion was more of a personal courtesy to her than a standard procedure. What about the article, exactly, is wishful thinking? If it's that CZ is struggling to attract users and increase overall activity level, that's not something I wished for, but it seems fairly clearcut just from CZ's own Statistics page: the number of active users per unit time has been declining. If it's the article comparisons that are wishful thinking...perhaps I can't see the mote in my own eye, but I tried to be fair (and Mike's article should help balance that out as well).--Sage Ross 14:50, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

Your license essay

You name "many pictures at Flickr" as an example of cc-sa-nc. I'm not sure that this is the best example. My understanding is that Flickr is commercial and that when you upload your cc-sa-nc pictures to Flickr, you're giving them a license to display the pictures on their website. So, while the pictures are licensed under cc-sa-nc, that's not the license that Flickr is using.

Apart from this minor comment, it's very clear. Thanks especially for the stuff on the possible future "merger" of cc-by-sa and GFDL; I didn't know that. -- Jitse Niesen 21:56, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

Thanks Jitse- you're very welcome. I was trying to find a good example of cc-sa-nc content, but it appears you're right. If you have any inspiration let me know.

I have big hopes for the compatibility bridge between cc-by-sa and the GFDL. I don't want to get peoples' hopes up too much, though... --Mike Johnson 22:18, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

The only cc-sa-nc example that comes to my mind is MIT's OpenCourseWare; see http://ocw.mit.edu . -- Jitse Niesen 03:14, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

On the topic of integrating CC-by-SA and GFDL and why it's (currently) a pain in the butt: In addition to tracking which articles are from WP, we would also not be able to move content between articles. Once an article has been started as CC-by-SA with more than one author, we can't import Wikipedia content to it. That'll cause confusion when we have users who don't precisely understand the rules. Most users (especially editors with time-constraints) will not read all of the policies, and will be troubled when they can import WP to some articles, and not to others. The number of mistakes would be an imposition on constable time to clean up (especially if it is uncaught through multiple edits) People seeking to reuse our content would also be best served by a consistent license. We may also have issues with using GFDLed templates and CSS/Javascript in non-GFDLed articles. -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 22:18, 28 October 2007 (CDT)

That certainly seems like a substantial argument in favor of the GFDL. --Mike Johnson 22:59, 28 October 2007 (CDT)