imported>Jesse Weinstein |
imported>Pat Palmer |
| (603 intermediate revisions by 49 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Archive box|auto=long}} | | {{Archive box|auto=long|box-width=30em}} |
| {{Usertime-text|Milt}}{{Template:Utc|-7}}<br><BR><BR><BR><BR> | | {{Usertime-text|Milt}}{{Template:Utc|-8 }}<br><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR> |
| | ==Milt== |
| | Milt was a great contributor to our project who invested a lot of his own knowledge and time in it; Citizendium is much poorer without him. He was highly trusted and respected, previously serving as the project's Treasurer and on the elected Management and Editorial Councils. However, we were a small part of a long life: Milt completed his degree in 1944, but his graduation was delayed while he saw action in Europe during the Second World War. Decades of experience in both chemical and environmental engineering followed, and he would become a well-published authority on various aspects of these fields, as recognized by his Fellowship of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. His daughter also tells me he liked to apply his engineering approach to everyday life by collecting recipes and carefully replicating dishes he'd enjoyed. Milt stood firm against pseudoscience and other nonsense, as we at Citizendium can attest, and was a strong proponent of the science and the facts. I am sure I speak for those who knew him here when I say that we will miss him. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] ([[User talk:John Stephenson|talk]]) 12:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
| | :RIP Milt. He was a nice gent. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] ([[User talk:Ro Thorpe|talk]]) 14:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
| | :RIP Milt. [[User:JeromeDelacroix|Jérôme Delacroix]] ([[User talk:JeromeDelacroix|talk]]) 18:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC+1) |
| | :RIP Milt. You embodied the true spirit of Citizendium at its best.[[User:Roger A. Lohmann|Roger A. Lohmann]] ([[User talk:Roger A. Lohmann|talk]]) 04:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC) |
| | :RIP MIlt. As a collaborator and colleague, he will be missed. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] ([[User talk:Russell D. Jones|talk]]) 16:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ==Just archived my last Talk page (Archive 6)==
| | Milt had an abundance of wisdom, passion and knowledge. He was with Citizendium from the early days, and embraced fully the spirit and idealism with which Citizendium was launched. He made an enormous contribution to the project. [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] ([[User talk:Gareth Leng|talk]]) 21:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| So things look a bit bare here right now. I don't think that will last long. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 05:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
| | I have missed Milt ever since he needed to leave the project, and I will always remember him fondly.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 01:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| == NDOTW & AOTW == | | == Milt's productivity as chemical engineer == |
|
| |
|
| Hi Milt,
| | Let us temper our sadness in the passing of our esteemed colleague with a celebration of his achievements in his field of endeavor. Google Scholar has tabulated 111 articles he published between 1951 and 2005, with links to them and to all the articles that cited them. |
| sorry for causing confusion, and thanks for being blunt. The reason I did that was that the AOTW as visible on the Welcome page then did neither link to the approved version nor to the draft, it did not contain an image, and the "read more" started right after the text, with no space in between. Since I cannot edit approved articles, I did a temporary fix and thought I'd marked it clearly as such in my edit summaries. If not, please excuse, and I will pay more attention in the future. However, I honestly hope we can integrate the preparation for transclusion into the approval process (and clear the backlog for those approved so far). We are waiting for Larry to approve the proposed solution via a dedicated Transclusion subpage. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 08:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| :Daniel, the real point is that all of us do not understand how templates are coded. So when a template is revised temporarily, the revision should be removed as soon as possible ... or an explanation should be provided as to how others can remove the temporary change. Anyway, I am happy that Caesar fixed it. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 18:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC) | | See: [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=kBHMSC4AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra MR Beychok] |
|
| |
|
| == [[The Canterbury Tales]] ==
| | [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|talk]]) 22:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
| | |
| Hi, Milton, I fear you flatter me: I certainly do have the time, but the expertise is lacking. I never read much of Chaucer, nor of his contemporaries [[William Langland]] and the [[Sir Gawain and the Green Knight|Gawain poet]] - they could perhaps be included, but wouldn't related articles require a lot of background on England in the Middle Ages? I'm no historian, but if there any concrete ways in which I could help out, do let me know. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 13:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Specialist supporter ==
| |
| | |
| I thought it was a routine editing matter to change a vote of an Editor in a relevant workgroup to Specialist -- that's the essential definition of a specialist. In this case, since it involves a new Editor, he might not have known the distinction (an aside -- one reason why I don't think people should be Editors from Day 1). If it bothers you, it can move back. I suppose there's a certain level of proceduralism that makes me uncomfortable that we are more worried about appearance than content. Certainly, I think we've gone far beyond that when a minor edit suddenly makes it impossible for an Editor to do a single Approval. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 19:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| : I accidently saw this. Allow me to comment it: I did not add my name as a specialist supporter because the rules on the page say: "Add your name in the Specialist supporters column only if you are an editor who is an expert about the topic in question." It says '''expert about the topic'''. For me topic is narrower than "workgroup". When I noticed that Howard changed this, I assumed that it should be interpreted as "workgroup", when you changed it back I was puzzled and realized that the rules might be a matter of interpretation. (This probably should be clarified.) May I add that it is a rather minor and quite unimportant risk whether a new editor votes with his full power or not. (There might be other risks.) <br> On the other topic mentioned: It really should be clarified when an editor loses the right to approve an article single-handedly, in particular, since active editors seem to be extremely rare. I think that some contributing should be allowed. And one should be aware that suggesting edits on the talk page may have the same effect as editing the page directly. The criteria should be independent of such manipulations. [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 20:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::(fixed formatting) I hadn't thought about the topic vs. workgroup, since I had always read it as workgroup. Article/draft of the week are fairly minor things, so I'm not too worried, but the granularity of "workgroup" remains a problem. I remember a noncontroversial item a while back, in an article under the Religion workgroup, citing a news item about tear gas. When I simply commented on the talk page that neither the chemical or the grenade worked that way, I wasn't doing so as a Military editor. In like manner, any of us might be an expert on a specific topic outside a workgroup.
| |
| | |
| ::Joe Quick, I believe, has been thinking about ways to use outside experts simply as reviewers. This is one possible way to deal with the situation where there is one active Editor who is also the author. There are times where an Author Citizen is an expert on a particular topic -- I remember an occasion when I was writing generally about a piece of military electronics that another Citizen had operated and maintained. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::I agree with both of you that the interpretation as to the meaning of "specialist" (in the context of Article/New Draft of the week) is a minor item. What made me uncomfortable, Howard, was the fact that someone other other than Peter changed Peter's vote. I think that voting changes should only be made by the person who voted. I would not have been the least bit uncomfortable if Peter had changed his vote himself. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 22:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::: Well, it was ''changing'' my voice only if I may choose to vote as a specialist or not. If not, then it only was "putting my vote into the correct urn". I still don't know what is case. If "specialist"="editor in the workgroup and if one is supposed to vote as such then I would change it myself. [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 23:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::::: I can only express my opinion. I do not think that an editor in a particular work group is automatically an "expert" in every subject included in that workgroup. For example, I am an editor in the engineering workgroup but my academic degree and all of my experience is in the field of chemical engineering which is but one of the many fields of engineering. I do not consider myself an expert in civil engineering or electrical engineering or aeronautical engineering. I am also fairly sure that a medical doctor who has 30 years or more experience in dermatology would not consider himself an expert in brain surgery. As another example, my good friend Howard is an engineering editor but I am fairly sure that there are many fields of engineering in which he doesn't consider himself an "expert".
| |
| | |
| :::::I have stressed the word "expert" because "specialist supporters" of Articles and New Drafts of the week are defined as "an editor who is an expert about the topic in question". I don't see how that can be interpreted other than as I have done. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 00:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::::: So my first interpretation of the rule is also your interpretation of that rule, and I do not consider me as a specialist. (However, I shall probably nominate the article for approval, sooner or later.) [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 00:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Joule-Thomson effect ==
| |
| Milton, please read my comments on the talk page of [[Joule-Thomson effect]]. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 15:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Glad to copyedit ==
| |
| | |
| Thanks for noticing; I'm glad the project has grown large enough that occasional copy editing is of service. [[User:Jesse Weinstein|Jesse Weinstein]] 17:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
Archive 1,
Archive 2,
Archive 3,
Archive 4,
Archive 5,
Archive 6,
Archive 7,
Archive 8,
Archive 9,
Archive 10,
Archive 11,
Archive 12
Where Milt lives it is approximately: 08:18
Milt
Milt was a great contributor to our project who invested a lot of his own knowledge and time in it; Citizendium is much poorer without him. He was highly trusted and respected, previously serving as the project's Treasurer and on the elected Management and Editorial Councils. However, we were a small part of a long life: Milt completed his degree in 1944, but his graduation was delayed while he saw action in Europe during the Second World War. Decades of experience in both chemical and environmental engineering followed, and he would become a well-published authority on various aspects of these fields, as recognized by his Fellowship of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. His daughter also tells me he liked to apply his engineering approach to everyday life by collecting recipes and carefully replicating dishes he'd enjoyed. Milt stood firm against pseudoscience and other nonsense, as we at Citizendium can attest, and was a strong proponent of the science and the facts. I am sure I speak for those who knew him here when I say that we will miss him. John Stephenson (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- RIP Milt. He was a nice gent. Ro Thorpe (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- RIP Milt. Jérôme Delacroix (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC+1)
- RIP Milt. You embodied the true spirit of Citizendium at its best.Roger A. Lohmann (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- RIP MIlt. As a collaborator and colleague, he will be missed. Russell D. Jones (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Milt had an abundance of wisdom, passion and knowledge. He was with Citizendium from the early days, and embraced fully the spirit and idealism with which Citizendium was launched. He made an enormous contribution to the project. Gareth Leng (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I have missed Milt ever since he needed to leave the project, and I will always remember him fondly.Pat Palmer (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Milt's productivity as chemical engineer
Let us temper our sadness in the passing of our esteemed colleague with a celebration of his achievements in his field of endeavor. Google Scholar has tabulated 111 articles he published between 1951 and 2005, with links to them and to all the articles that cited them.
See: MR Beychok
Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Where Milt lives it is approximately: 08:18