User talk:Hayford Peirce: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>RICARDO Gomes de Paiva DE FARIA
imported>John Stephenson
m (Protected "User talk:Hayford Peirce" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
 
(759 intermediate revisions by 47 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{archive box}}


== All Previous Material Moved To Archive 7; Start New Headers Below This ==
== Threading ==
Moving this discussion from ID talk page.  Do you remember if there was already a discussion in the forum.  If so I think I missed it and i don't want to rehash old news.  [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 17:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, there was one several months ago, in which I *thought* some sort of consensus was arrived at. Milton, I believe, was writing the text for this blue Etiquette box that we see at the top of the screen, and we were discussing what exactly to put into it. I thought that it was *you* who was doing the actual writing of the template and also, maybe, participating in the discussion.  But, I guess, you were just putting in what Milton asked you to. Having gone through that one discussion, this is why I get annoyed, sometimes, when people seem to arbitrarily decide not to play by the rules/guidelines/suggestions/whatever that were talked about. (I think that as a result of the discussion, someone *also* went in the CZ:HowToDo things and rewrote it to say that the use of indents in threading *was* the way to do it, not merely a "suggestion".) [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)"
::May I point out, Hayford, that threading refers specifically to the system which you are deprecating? :-p
::Also, re. "people seem to arbitrarily decide not to play by the rules" - I've never actually come across such rules, and until you mentioned them the other day I had no idea that discussions were supposed to be linear.
::Anyhow, I am very much in favour of a new discussion or a vote. I believe the form software allows them to be set up very easily.
::[[User:Caesar Schinas|Caesar Schinas]] 17:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm all for a new discussion, just as long as it gives a definitive, permanent answer. I don't care one way or another, except I do have my own personal opinion, of course. Lemme look for where what I call "the rules" spell it out -- I know it's there somewhere. (I myself didn't just arbitrarily decide one day that we were going to use colons for indents come hell or high water!) [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Here, Caesar, take a look at this: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=CZ:How_to_use_talk_pages&action=edit&section=4 There's probably some wriggle room in there, but maybe not. The intent seems clear, however. I know that *you* weren't here at the time of the discussion (which apparently was back in January), but some of the other people who disagree with the indentation system *were* here and, I think, didn't raise their voices very strongly in opposition. (In their defense, I *will* say that we were struggling with '''two''' different issues at the same time. We had just gone through some problems with, shall I say, a "difficult" contributor, who insisted first on putting all new comments at the '''top''' of the page, '''and''' using/or not using the indent or anything-other system except in his own totally arbitrary manner. It was in a reaction to him that we rewrote the rules.) [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::I have not read your link yet, but here's the interesting thing.  I did write the text in the blue box, but my interpretation of that text seems to be different to your own. Obviously this is more subjective than we had realised.  This makes me suspect I missed the discussion since I think I would have brought this up at the time, if I had noticed it. Anyway, I'll now go back and read the original discussion. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 17:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::Great! And if, after you find it, you would put a link to it '''[[CZ:How_to_use_talk_pages#How_to_reply_to_an_on_going_discussion|here]]''', I would be very grateful! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::So I did participate on the talk page but not on the CZ page. <s>As far as i can tell, the scenario where two people reply to the same person is not discussed.</s> OK it is. I guess I disagree with that example.  I should read the talk page more carefully to see what the rationale was.  For your information, I would have thought the example in that link should look like the following since both lisa and george are replying to Bob. In the current example it looks like George is replying to Lisa.  [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 18:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Example:
{| border="1" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"
|
<nowiki>How's the soup? --[[Bob]]</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>:It's great!! --[[Lisa]]</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>:Not too bad.. --[[George]]</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>::I made it myself! --[[Bob]]</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>I think the soup discussion should be moved to [[Talk:Soup]].. --[[Lisa]]</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>:I tend to disagree. --[[George]]</nowiki><br>
|}
The above will produce this:
{| border="1" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"
|
How's the soup? --[[Bob]]<br>
:It's great!! --[[Lisa]]<br>
:Not too bad.. --[[George]]<br>
::I made it myself! --[[Bob]]<br>
I think the soup discussion should be moved to [[Talk:Soup]].. --[[Lisa]]<br>
:I tend to disagree. --[[George]]<br>
|}
Yes, I can see that. Geez, what a can of worms! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:It depends what is valued most.  An effort to maintain the chronology of replies by indenting or an effort to match the replies in the correct context. Obviously this is only an issue when multiple people are involved in a discussion. I prefer the example where the two replies are on the same level since it is then obvious that Lisa and George are both replying to Bob. In our current example:
::{| border="1" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"
|
How's the soup? --[[Bob]]<br>
:It's great!! --[[Lisa]]<br>
::Not too bad.. --[[George]]<br>
:::I made it myself! --[[Bob]]<br>
I think the soup discussion should be moved to [[Talk:Soup]].. --[[Lisa]]<br>
:I tend to disagree. --[[George]]<br>
|}
:I had to read for context to determine who George was addressing. The chronology, for me, is less of an issue since you can untie complex pages by stepping through the edit history or looking at the time stamp.  For me, reading for context is more time consuming on a busy talk page. Obviously neither solution is near perfect. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 18:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::Well, the example seems pretty clear to me; it shows threading.
::Bob asks how the soup is. Lisa and George people answer him, each indented one level. He then replies to George of them, indenting a further one level.
::Below, a separate discussion is taking place. Lisa suggest moving the soup discussion, and George replies - indenting one level - to say that he disagrees.
::The only complaint I have about the example is that the spacing is a little weird. I think we should allways leave a blanbk line between one comment and the next, with the possible exception of if they are both by the same person.
::[[User:Caesar Schinas|Caesar Schinas]] 06:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:::"''Lisa and George people answer him, each indented one level.''" The problem is that our [[CZ:How_to_use_talk_pages#How_to_reply_to_an_on_going_discussion|current example]] does not do this. I agree about the blank line.  it makes it much easier to find the relevant text when in edit mode. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 17:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Ah yes; I see that now. I had thought the first example was a copy-paste from the instructions, because I just skimmed the posts above... never a good idea! [[User:Caesar Schinas|Caesar Schinas]] 21:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
== Let's start a new one, to clear the air ==
Oh, I thought you meant you were going to find a Forums discussion. Am I misremembering and *all* of the discussion was on a talk page (or more than one talk page). If you will recall, because of Dr. Cohen, this was a contentious subject at the time. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:Oh I see, sorry for the confusion.  Your original link went to an edit page for me. I actually don't remember any of this discussion, my mind must have been on other things, even though I participated. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 18:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::It's confusing because I think we had *two* ongoing discussions, one (or more) in the talk pages, and another in the Forum. I think I can say without fear of contradictions, however, that any *new* discussion will probably bring up the same arguments. I think that what I *may* have said at the time, in one place or another, was that it didn't so much matter as to *which* system we chose, but that we should only have '''one''', to prevent confusion and acrimony. Which, of course, has again arisen. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
==Unifying concepts==
It's...it's...(Monty Python) the Soup [threading] Nazi (extended Seinfeld). [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
== Replace template in Approved article ==
Hayford, would you mind changing the following, at the beginning of [[Tux]]?<br />
Currently
<pre>
{{subpages}}
[[Image:Linux_Tux_Logo.png|thumb|150px|right|Tux the penguin, the Linux mascot, as he most commonly appears and as originally drawn by Larry Ewing. Also see [[Tux/Gallery|"A pictorial history of Tux".]]]]
__NOTOC__
{{dablink|This article is for Tux the [[Linux]] mascot. For other uses, see [[Tux (disambiguation)]].}}
</pre>
Please change to
<pre>
{{subpages}}
{{dambigbox|Tux the [[Linux]] mascot|Tux}}
__NOTOC__
[[Image:Linux_Tux_Logo.png|thumb|150px|right|Tux&nbsp; the official Linux penguin. This image depicts him as most commonly appears and as originally drawn by Larry Ewing. Also see [[Tux/Gallery|"A pictorial history of Tux".]]]]
</pre>
Thanks, [[User:Caesar Schinas|Caesar Schinas]] 06:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks. [[User:Caesar Schinas|Caesar Schinas]] 16:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
== Monster crisps ==
Yes, Pringles, how I used to love them, but a health scare forced me to give them up about a decade ago - nice article in the NYT. We have the odd situation wherein there are separate articles on the very similar chips/chipped potatoes and fries, but none on crisps/potato chips. That sent me back to the language articles, but I don't know that I could start a new one on such a scientific subject; I could essay an opening definition, perhaps, after dinner. Crisps are potato-based snacks found in English pubs, hmm... [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 18:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:I gotta say that Pringles actually taste pretty good, particularly the sour cream-chives one, even though they're all frankenfood monsters grown in a vat.... As you say, I was surprised there was no article. There were a couple of Dereks here a couple of years ago who did some stuff, then vanished, I thought that one of them had done it.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
== Please weigh in on this with your comments ==
Hayford, please look at my comments [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2706.msg21364.html#msg21364 here] on the forums. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 04:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
== Ketoconazole ==
Thanks for the approval work Hayford. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 12:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
== Asneira ==
is a nice Portuguese word for what I did yesterday, moving a talk page instead of the page itself. And my efforts to undo the mistake have only made matters worse: [[Violin Concerto No. 1 (Bruch)]]. But I'm sure Officer Peirce can help. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 13:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
:What exactly are you trying to do? Should the article be at [[Bruch Violin Concerto Number 1]] and the talk page at [[Talk:Bruch Violin Concerto Number 1]], or the article at [[Violin Concerto No. 1 (Bruch)]] and the talk page at [[Talk:Violin Concerto No. 1 (Bruch)]], or what? [[User:Caesar Schinas|Caesar Schinas]] 14:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The article should be at [[Violin Concerto No. 1 (Bruch)]] & the talk at [[Talk:Violin Concerto No. 1 (Bruch)]]. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 14:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
:Is [[Violin_Concerto_No._1_(Bruch)|that]] OK now? [[User:Caesar Schinas|Caesar Schinas]] 15:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
== ToApprove articles ==
Hayford, I've been in contact by email with Robert Badget about those articles.  I'll let you know when everything is straightened out. --Joe (04:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)) [[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]
:Should be all straightened out now.  Both are due for approval on July 1st. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 16:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
== I revised [[CZ:Article of the Week]]. Provided a place for anyone to simply make nominations. Then the program Administrators will do the transclusions. ==
I just revised the [[CZ:Article of the Week]] to provide a place (and instructions) for any CZ author or editor to simply add the names of new  nominees.
'''I did NOT make any revisions to the transcluded versions of the articles that were added by Daniel Mietchen, Caesar Chinas or myself.''' All I did was provide a new section where anyone can simply add new nominees without having to transclude them.
I also reworded some section headers (and relocated one section) to make clear that Administrators of the "Article of the Week" initiative would do the transclusions.
I did that because I felt many authors and editors would be reluctant to make nominations if they had to do the transclusion themselves.
I asked Caesar Chinas to review my revision. After he does, I will also revise [[CZ:New Draft of the Week]] similarly. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 23:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
== approvals ==
Thanks for taking care of [[folk saint]].  Did you notice that [[Randomized controlled trial]] and [[Evidence-based medicine]] are both scheduled to be re-approved today too? --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 21:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
:I did those two first, for practice. They're actually easier to do than the real Approval.  So you can remove them, or move them around, or renumber, or whatever needs to be done.
::Huh.  It must have taken longer for the cache to clear or something.  When I left the message above, it looked like they were still awaiting a constable.  They look fine now, though.  I'll post a note on the approvals announcement page. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 22:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
:Oh. By the way, Roger found a typo in the lead paragraph of [[folk saint]].  Could you fix it on the approved version?  Thanks much. --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 21:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
::Sure. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 21:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
== Constable issue ==
Hayford, you are a constable: Do you think this is a case where an approved article should be changed?
See [[User_talk:Jitse_Niesen#Complex_number_page]] [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 22:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
== CZ Main page addition proposal: "Little gems". ==
'''Food for thoughts''': CZ's main page currently highlights "Some of our finest"; "Article of the Week", "Citation of the Week".
Maybe CZ could consider adding a new highlight topic: "Little great contributions" or "Little gems". Note I am not "fishing for compliments" - rather I am trying to expose my thoughts, my feelings...)
- I know that our daily cores do not allow us to dedicate the needed time for us to be abreast of "all things and at all times" - And exactly for this reason is that I deem it "philosophically important" to the advancement of CZ's cause this instant proposal: An addition to CZ's main page in the lines of "Little gems"...
I am just using my experience here (I am 60 years old | young) in this first week of mine at CZ and wonder if others - new or seasoned CZ authors - sense this as I did: If this point proves to have "some merits" - then this proposal could result in a "greater enthusiasm" for the authors to foster CZ.
- The gist of the proposal is to give "due credit" to "little" great, dense, stuff "E=MC2" alike: it would be an addition to CZ's main page titled, something in the line of "Little gems". Consider this noting that I do know that these "little gems" do not come even closer of the magnitude of a conclusion like "E=MC2" - I am just using it as an analogy just to convey my rationale (I do declare my humble awareness of ''how insignificant we become, day after day, in this life''):
Yet, it took me 40 years in the legal arena to come to these two conclusions, to understand these two "little" things - And far as I am concerned I even think that I would have ''the duty to mark it'' to be examined by CZ as an eventual "little gem":
Third paragraph of CZ's '''Law''' [[[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Law]]] reads "Law is the science that allows life in society".
Last paragraph of CZ's '''Legal_profession''' [[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Law#Legal_profession]] reads
''Legal Profession may be understood as encompassing seven basic areas: 1. In-House or Outside Assistance, 2. In-House or Outside Counselling, 3. The actings as empowered legal representative of a given person - be it in before the society at large or just before a Court System, 4. Legal Auditing, 5. Legal Comptrolling, 6. Legal Planning, and 7. Legal Education.''

Latest revision as of 17:35, 13 January 2021

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Hayford_Peirce&oldid=26907"