User talk:Milton Beychok

Milton Beychok

Current talk page

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: 07:13

Just archived my last Talk page (Archive 6)

So things look a bit bare here right now. I don't think that will last long. Milton Beychok 05:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

NDOTW & AOTW

Hi Milt, 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. --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. Milton Beychok 18:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Canterbury Tales

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 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. 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. 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.)
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.) Peter Schmitt 00:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Joule-Thomson effect

Milton, please read my comments on the talk page of Joule-Thomson effect. 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. Jesse Weinstein 17:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving Talk page Chemical elements

Milton, thanks. Can you give me a brief summary on how to archive. Much appreciated. Anthony.Sebastian 18:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding references speaking for themselves

Milton, you say references speak for themselves, and I agree. But I disagree no copy from the reference should accompany its citation. Including copy, such as an abstract or an excerpt, has several values that contribute to the quality of the article:

1. It improves the content value of the article itself by providing pertinent textual informational not contained in the Main Article text.
2. It provides that additional informational content without requiring the reader to link away from the Main Article, interrupting the flow of the Main Article.
3. It renders the article more encyclopedic, in the sense of comprehensiveness. The reader gets a bigger picture from the article without having to get that bigger picture through chasing down the references.
4. If the reader wants to contribute as a collaborator, having that bigger picture may open new areas for them to help develop the article.

I could spell out other values of the practice particular to particular instances.

I prefer to keep the annotations to the references, for those and other reasons, both practical and scholarly.

Thank you for considering this. Anthony.Sebastian 01:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Anthony, I think that one or two brief sentences (and I do mean one or two brief sentences) as annotations are okay. But I do not believe that extensive extracts or excerpts should be used. And I strongly object to including a "publisher's description" of a book or article ... those are just hype to promote purchase of the book or article.

In my own articles, if a reference contains useful information that is pertinent the articles, then I work that content into the main text of the article where it is relevant ... rather than annotate the reference with an extensive abstract or excerpt.

The way to render an article more encylopedic is to do make the main article text more comprehensive ... rather using the references for that purpose.

The whole idea of linking words to another article is what makes an online encylopedia more interesting and easier to use than a printed encyclopedia. If each article tried to avoid word links by explaining words via reference annotations, then we would soon have a number of articles (written by different authors) all explaining the same word or words in a different manner ... which really would confuse readers! For example, there may be dozens of aricles using the words "chemical reaction". If they all link to the same collaboratively written and agreed upon article entitled "Chemical reaction" ... then they all provide the same information as they should. However,if each of those dozens of article attempts to explain "chemical reactions" by a footnote or by an annotated reference, then readers will have dozens of different explanations of "chemical reactions" ... which is not as it should be.

In closing, I just looked at a good number of articles by David Volk, by Daniel Mietchen, by Paul Wormer and one article that was contributed to extensively by Sekha Telluri, David Volk and Daniel Mietchen. None those included annotated references or "further reading" sections by more than 1 or perhaps 2 sentence. In fact, most of their references had no annotation at all. So it is fairly obvious, that I am not the only one that doesn't believe in overly extensive annotation of references or footnotes. Milton Beychok 03:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Milton, we seem to have a difference of opinion, each strongly held. I believe we also have a difference in pedagogic style. Neither emerge rarely in collaborative writing projects. Nevertheless, I understand your points, and consider them valid from the perspective you offer. Anthony.Sebastian 03:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthony. I hope we are still friends. Regards, Milton Beychok 03:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Grand Trunk Railway

Milton, I just nominated this one for approval. Please look it over. It's in the engineering workgroup. Thanks. Russell D. Jones 20:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Russell, I responded on the article's talk page at Talk:Grand Trunk Railway. Regards, Milton Beychok 22:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Russell updated the version of Grand Trunk Railway to be approved to the most recent revision and the article is just about ready to go, but we need you to have a look over those changes and let us know whether you also agree with them. Once we've heard from you and Milt, Hayford or Matt can make it official. Thanks much. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Screaming Lords and Generals

I removed my nomination, somewhat sadly, of Screaming Lord Sutch so I wouldn't have two nominations in NDOTW. The former is still transcluded; I didn't see it gaining support and felt I had a strong new offering. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove the transcluding this evening. Milton Beychok 23:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Diaper

Did this catch your eye, for editing, since it's so involved with accidental releases? Howard C. Berkowitz 04:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Howard, I repeat what I have said before, you would make a great stand-up comedian! Milton Beychok 04:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. That article did link to the UK Environment Agency. Milton Beychok 04:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles on books...

I'd like to write an article on a book I recently read, The Age of Ra by James Lovegrove, and I wanted to take the time to ask a couple people about the mechanics of articles about books.

1. Are plot summaries ok?
2. Are lists of Characters ok, main characters or otherwise?
3. Is it ok to take a picture of the front cover to use as a picture for the article?
4. Is it ok to include an average retail price?

and finally

If included, should any of these things be put on a subpage?

Thanks Milton - Drew R. Smith 05:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Drew, the only books I have written about are engineering textbooks ... no plots and no characters. As for photographing the covers and uploading them into CZ, I think you would most definitely need to obtain permission from the publishers.

It would be my opinion that you definitely should not include any retail prices ... nor do I see how that information is needed in a book article. Regards, Milton Beychok 06:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Mauna Kea Transclusion tags

I know alot of work goes into running NDOTW and AOTW, so I want to start by saying I'm not complaining or griping at you. Actually, I want to show you something.

If you look here you can see a bit of white space between the subpages and the lede. Since the coordinates template was there I neither worried about it, nor did I realise that it had anything to do with the transclusion stuff. If you look here, you can see it without the coordinates (which I moved to the infobox), and the white space is still there. I looked at the source for the page (which can be seen here), and found that when you added the includeonly tags around the picture it also added some white space. The solution can be seen here, or here. So, if you need to do something like that in the future, you now know how to avoid the extra whitespace. Drew R. Smith 22:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Drew. I usually do manage to eliminate any extra white space. I do most of the transclusion stuff fairly late in the evening and I guess I missed eliminating the white space on your article. Sorry about that and thanks for fixing it. Milton Beychok 22:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I assumed that having to add the extra image within the includeonly tags is what threw you off. As you said, you usually do eliminate whitespace. Drew R. Smith 04:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Barometric formula

Hello Milton, I read the US report on atmosphere and I see how one can derive (without Boltzmann) your two pressure equations in Earth's atmosphere. I'm considering writing Barometric formula, but since it may interfere with your lapse rate, it seemed better to me to synchronize it with you first. --Paul Wormer 09:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul, I am not sure how your Barometric formula article would interfere with the Atmospheric lapse rate article I am writing. You can see my article in progress at User:Milton Beychok/Sandbox and judge for yourself. I am about 75% finished with it. I might even finish it today. As I said above, I am no expert on atmospheric science or meteorology ... I just thought the Earth's atmosphere and Atmospheric lapse rate articles were needed to fit in with my air pollution dispersion modeling articles ... so I wrote them. Milton Beychok 15:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at your sandbox and see no interference. Basically all I will do is give the derivation of your two equations. (If we had plenty of articles the derivation could go well as an addendum to Earth's atmosphere, but since everybody always uses the # of articles as a criterion, it is better to make a new article out of it). --Paul Wormer 15:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I have replied to your question on my talk page Drew R. Smith 09:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the transclusion for Zionism. I was at work when it was nominated. Drew R. Smith 09:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this concept used in your engineering disciplines?

Would you take a look at separation of concerns and see if it's familiar in other engineering disciplines, perhaps adding a note if so? Thanks. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Howard, I have never heard of that concept nor have I ever read about it, but keep in mind that I retired about 10-12 years ago. Milton Beychok 20:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

Hi Milton, following your request on the forums regarding copyright checking, I looked through your User:Milton Beychok/Gallery3 and turned up some minor issues, which should be fairly easy to resolve.

• Image:RIVM_building.jpg

You stated that the image is copyrighted but may be reused. I have searched the website you gave as a source, and can find no copyright information. Can you please point me to where you found the copyright information?

• Image:Reliance Industries Ltd. Refinery.jpg

You stated that the image is in the public domain. I searched the website you gave as a source, but found no copyright information. Can you point me to the copyright information?

• Image:German Petrochem Plant.jpg

You stated that the image was used by permission. However, I think some of Caesar's changing the upload forms removed or hid the permissions for the image. Could you please point me to the permission page, or re-make it? If you can't find it, I can send out an email re-asking for permission.

Also, I noticed on some of the images you created yourself you didn't color in the holes in the letters, as seen here. If you want, I can fix those for you.

I will look through the rest as time permits. Drew R. Smith 09:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Drew. As for Image:RIVM_building.jpg, this statement is on their website at Disclaimer in the last two sentences:"The materials contained in the web site may be downloaded or copied provided that all copies retain the copyright and any other proprietary notices contained on the materials. No material may be modified, edited or taken out of context such that its use creates a false or misleading statement or impression as to the positions, statements or actions of RIVM."

As for the other two images, I'll look into them later and let you know. As for coloring holes in lettering, go ahead and do it if you think its needed. In most cases, that is not discernable enough to worry about.Milton Beychok 16:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Drew, as for Image:Reliance Industries Ltd. Refinery.jpg, as noted on the image file, the source was a website page of the U.S. Export-Import Bank which is a .gov page. That page in its entirety is "a work of the U.S. government" and, as far as I could determine, the website does not contain any statement that prohibits using any of the photos. As a work of the U.S. government, that whole page is in the public domain. Also, I did credit Reliance Reliance Industries for the photo.

There are other public domain photos in my other two galleries that also came from public domain .gov websites. Milton Beychok 18:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Drew, as for Image:German Petrochem Plant.jpg, it came from Flickr and it was the work of Volkan Cordan (as seen on a photo here). He is a lawyer in Switzerland. I remember sending him an email (I believe by Flickr mail) and receiving an okay from him (unless my memory is playing tricks on me). However, I don't seem to have saved our exchange on my computer. Is there not any way to find the CZ "Permissions" page associated with the image files so that I can see exactly what I wrote there?

I would be embarrassed to write (or for you to write) and ask his permission a second time. I would rather just leave things as they are. Milton Beychok 18:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok Milton, I've verified the three images in question. For the second one I didn't realize that the website was a U.S. government project, and I did find, and added a link to, the permission.

As for the filling in holes, it isn't really noticable unless you open the image file, so I leave that up to you. Drew R. Smith 01:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, thats part of what I've been trying to do. I'm basically going through all the images we have and checking the copyright information. For the ones that are used by permission I make sure that there is a link to the permissions page. Also, once the copyright info has been verified I add {{copyright|DATE|NAME|http://www.LINK.com}} which adds a small statement below the copyright info saying something along the lines of "This image's copyright information has been verified by NAME on DATE. The copyright information can be found here." If it's PD old, or self made, or for any other reason doesn't have online copyright info, I just omit the entire second line. Drew R. Smith 01:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow! That's a heck of a big project, Drew. Good luck with it. Milton Beychok 02:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Natural gas

Milton, I noticed that "natural gas" is fairly high on the wanted pages list. I also saw that you contributed to the WP article. Would we import it? What do you think?--Paul Wormer 07:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that we need an article on natural gas (as distinct from the Natural gas processing article I created about a year ago). It is in my to do list as something I might try in the future. Right now, I am starting on a new article ... that will take me about a week before I finish it.

As for the WP article, like many other WP articles, it has some sections that are not really relevant to the main subject because so many people feel they must add in their one pet bit of information without really taking the time to think whether it is relevant or not. For example the section on town gas is not relevant because it was a manufactured, synthetic gas rather than natural gas. The same holds true of the section on biogas ... it is not natural gas. There are other sections which are too lengthy.

If you are willing to wait a week or two, I will take a shot at writing a CZ article on natural gas. Milton Beychok 08:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

OK I wait. I agree with your opinion about the WP article. If I had imported it, I would have kicked out those sections that you mention. --Paul Wormer 08:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem uploading an image

I just spent some time trying to upload the image (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Golden_Rectangle_Construction.svg), following your advice, but it seems to still be giving the thumbnail even though I selected 2000px PNG. I really need to earn how to do this sort of thing myself, but this does not seem to be working for me. Malcolm Schosha 15:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Clausius-Clapeyron

Milt, see Clausius–Clapeyron relation. --Paul Wormer 16:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Forming a sub-group - what is the process?

Hi Milt,

Howard and I have been discussing forming an internet sub-group. He said the whole idea of sub-groups is yours, created when you formed the Chemical Engineering sub-group. I wonder if you could give us some help on the administrative side of things. For example, is there any approval process required to form a sub-group? Should there be a description of the sub-group's focus area somewhere on CZ? If so, would you point me to a few existing descriptions, so I can draft one for the internet sub-group? Any other help you can give on the process of sub-group formation would be greatly appreciated. Dan Nessett 15:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Dan:

First, a bit of history. Almost as soon as I joined CZ, I began asking that the Engineering Workgroup be split into various workgroups, one for each engineering discipline (Mechanical, Electrical, Civil, Chemical, Aeronautical, etc., etc.) ... and that idea met a lot of resistance. At that time, Chris Day was an active member and he had set up our system of subpages. He suggested that, instead of trying to promote new workgroups (which required approval from above), perhaps we could work from the bottom up and try to form subgroups. He then created the Chemical Engineering subgroup (which is my discipline) as a pilot program. After a trial period of a few months, Chris wrote up a proposal to form bottom up subgoups and it was submitted to the Editorial Council, voted upon and approved.

Chris also wrote up the procedure for forming new groups and it is available at CZ:Subgroups. Since Chris had created the Chemical Engineering subgroup as a pilot program, I have no personal experience with how to do it ... but it is explained fairly thoroughly in CZ:Subgroups. That document also includes (in its "See Also" section) a list of the 19 subgroups that we now have. Perhaps some of the active members of those subgroups have personal experience they could share with you.

Forming a new subgroup does not require any approval and it can be done by either authors or editors. Subsequently, affiliating the subgroup with one or more workgroups is needed and that does require an editor to do so ... as explained in CZ:Subgroups. I hope you find this useful and good luck to you and Howard. Milton Beychok 17:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Milt. Your reply was extremely helpful. Dan Nessett 17:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have created the Internet Subgroup template and the Internet Subgroup home page. However, on both is an undefined link "Internet tag". I'm not sure what to do about it. If you want to see what I mean look here. Does this have something to do with the fact that the group is not yet associated with any workgroups? Dan Nessett 21:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what that tag means or why it is there. I looked at a number of the newer subgroups and none of them had that tag. You may be right, it may be because it is not affiliated with any workgroups yet. Since Chris Day and Joe Quick seem to be unavailable at this time, perhaps Drew Smith or Daniel Mietchen could help you. Milton Beychok 22:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Milt. While I wait for Howard to reply to my question whether he would have any objection to simply copying the text from the description page, I thought I would ask this. Is there a way to copy both the text and history between two articles (other than by moving the subject article to the target)? If I could do this, I could preserve the history of the one edit Howard did on the text. Dan Nessett 14:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

When you have created the new article and used the {{subpages}} template to create the cluster, you could copy and paste Howard's edit history into the new article's History page. Milton Beychok 14:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

[unindent]

Well, I must be doing something wrong. After copying the text, adding the {{subpages}} call and saving, I clicked the history tab. Then with the history showing, I click edit. However, what I get is an edit window showing the main article text. Is there some other tab I have to use? Dan Nessett 15:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Dan, I just went to the new Internet article and it looks perfect to me. All of the subpages are there as they should be, with one exception which is the Defintion subpage which you should also create.

When I then go the History tab at the top of the Internet article, it works fine for me and it includes two edits by you and some that Howard is making as I am writing this, so he must not be too displeased by what you have done.

As for copying Howard's one very minor edit from the CZ:Wishlist article, it was just a change of a few words. My advice is to just forget about it and I am sure Howard has already done so. Otherwise, just ask Howard to help you with that. Milton Beychok 16:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added a definition. Unfortunately, Howard seems upset about copying rather than moving the article. Dan Nessett 17:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Amine gas treating

One other commnent. I was wondering if you might also add a sentence to explain why the removal of two gases (H2S and CO2) requires less amine that the removal of only one gas, CO2? David E. Volk 19:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

David, I have added a paragraph to explain the factors involved in selecting the amine concentration in the circulating solution. As you will note in what I added, the choice of solution concentration is quite often made arbitrarily based on experience. However, I have done my best to answer your question and I have referred the reader to Kohl and Nielson's book for more information.

Just as a bit of trivia, Art Kohl was one of the originators of the amine treating process when he worked at the Fluor Engineering & Construction Company in about 1940-1955 which is where I met him when I worked for Fluor in that same time frame. Milton Beychok 21:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome & Sandbox

Thank you, Milton, for your fellow-editor's welcome and for creating the first "sandbox" for me -- I appreciate it. I've started looking around and will see what I might be able to add.... BTW, my father worked nearly 40 years in the bromine business as a chemical engineer (designed plants and such for Great Lakes Chemical in its heyday). I'm going to see if he'd be willing to author some articles on that subject and other topics he worked on, too. He was referenced in Perry's 5th edition, I think it was, for his work on distillation methods. Karl D. Schubert 20:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to get around the requirement that a subgroup main article must have the same name as the subgroup

Milt. Howard is opposed to the text that I and others supplied for the Internet article after I moved the old text to a new article name. He has rolled back the old article text and wants to modify it, rather than use the next text. I would like to separate the discussion we are having about that article and move ahead with the Internet subgroup formation. Is it legal to create a subgroup main article that has a different name than the subgroup name? For example, Internet subgroup? Dan Nessett 05:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Dan, you asked for my help with forming a subgroup and a move, and I helped you. Beyond that, there is nothing else I can do. I am completely out of my element about the Internet. This is something you will have to thrash out with Howard. Milton Beychok 06:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Milt. I completely understand that you do not want to get in the middle of something that really doesn't involve you. However, I am not really asking you to do that. I am simply asking a technical question. How do you link a subgroup's "main article" link to the main article itself. It must be possible to do that because right now the main article for the Internetworking subgroup is not Internetworking. It is Internet. If you don't know how that is accomplished, could you point me to someone who might? Thanks. Dan Nessett 02:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Dan, for the Chemical Engineering subgroup, the main article is Chemical engineering and it is linked to the subgroup by specifying Chemical Engineering as one of the subcats in the article's Metadata template which then automatically includes a link to the Chemical Engineering subgroup at the bottom of the article.

As for the "Main article" link at the top of the subgroup back to the main article, the Chemical Engineering subgroup was the first pilot subgroup and it was set up by Chris Day ... so I really don't know how it was done. I would assume that it is explained in CZ:Subgroups. Other than that, I have no clue other than to suggest you contact some members/editors of other subgroups. You might also ask Drew Smith for help because he is quite good at that sort of thing. Milton Beychok 04:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: Nevermind Milt. I figured out how to clean things up. Thanks. Dan Nessett 04:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Nominations Page help

Yep, that worked. Thanks Milton. David E. Volk 09:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Amine gas treating

Hi Milt, I noticed your question on Approval Manager's talk page about changing the version number. One of the things I look for is whether the nominating editor approves the version in the template. The best way to know that is to see that he/she is the one that put it in. However, sometimes the editor does not know what to do and it is fine for you to change it, but make sure that you have documented and linked the request on the talk page (somewhere near the bottom where I would be looking to make sure all the bases are covered). Hope that makes sense. D. Matt Innis 00:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I got it, Milton. Congratulations, again! D. Matt Innis 20:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversies in Chemical Engineering

Milt. Thinking about my assertion that experts generally belong to one camp in a particular controversy and have a low opinion of those in the other camps led me to wonder if you fit this characterization. So, I thought I would ask you to describe your views on the causes of global warming (in a way that a non-expert like me might understand). If you have strong views about this issue, what is you opinion of those who hold a contrary view? Dan Nessett 23:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me first make it perfectly clear that I am no expert on global warming by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, in my opinion, the subject of global warming is not part of the chemical engineering discipline ... it is part if the "atmospheric science" and the "meteorology" disciplines, for which many universities offer curricula.

CZ has an article on Global warming. When it was first developed, it had no section devoted the sketicism of global warming theory. Paul Wormer and I felt that the other side of the story deserved a hearing so he and I developed the section entitled "Skepticism about global climate change and its anthropogenic origin" that CZ's Global warming article now contains.

Why did I do that? Because I valued the competence of many of the skeptics of the global warming theory such as an eminent professor of atmospheric science at MIT, an ex-president of the U.S. National Academy of Science and many, many other scientists ... and felt that the Global warming article was not being neutral by not presenting their views.

As for my opinion of those who believe in global warming, that is a private matter not open for discussion here. I really do not wish to discuss this topic any further. Please do not draw any conclusions regarding my opinion from my wish not to discuss this topic any further. Regards, Milton Beychok 23:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Milt. No problem. I was unaware that you and Paul Wormer wrote a section for the Global Warming article. I really am not interested in the topic itself (or at least that was not my reason for bringing it up here) and I am happy to drop it.

My real interest is how experts deal with strongly held positions. So, would you be willing to pick another issue, one that is controversial in Chemical Engineering? Perhaps rather than making it personal, you might comment on what your colleagues who are on different sides of the issue think of those on the other side. If this is something you don't want to do, I understand. Dan Nessett 00:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No, this something I do not want to do. Milton Beychok 03:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. I hope I haven't done something offensive. Dan Nessett 03:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

J-T effect and Natural Gas

Milton, I have nominated the J-T effect article, and requested two minor changes before approval for Natural gas. David E. Volk 16:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, David. I have made the corrections you pointed out in Natural gas. Milton Beychok 17:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Natural gas for approval. David E. Volk 17:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Milton, I fixed the approval date for the J-T effect. Thanks for catching that. David E. Volk 18:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding certain of your edits in Chemical element

Milton, I would like to respectfully take exception to certain of your edits of my contributions to the article, Chemical element. I refer in particular to my annotations of certain citations in the references section. For example, regarding the excerpt I included as an annotation to Peter Atkins's book, cited in the Introduction, you say that the reference speaks for itself, therefore the excerpt not needed. Certainly, I agree with you about "not needed", assuming the reader has a copy of the book at hand. However, many readers will not have a copy of the book at hand. If they want further elaboration on the point made in the text for which I cited the book, they would need to obtain a copy of it, perhaps with some inconvenience, perhaps with enough inconvenience that they would choose not to pursue the issue. I put the excerpt there for the reader's convenience and for her information. The elaboration that the excerpt provides adds content to the article without interrupting the flow of the text of the article. If the reader has no interest in the elaboration, she can simply ignore the citation's annotation in the reference section. Respectfully, I do not believe the claim of 'not necessary' — a subjective one — adequate justification for deletion, particularly when the deleted material does not intrude on the text of the article and adds value to the article as a whole. Reluctantly, I restored the excerpt, knowing that as Editor you could overrule that action. I hope my explanation, that my annotations of citations I provide for the convenience and instuction of the reader, will deter you, but if it does not, I will of course defer. ...said Anthony.Sebastian (talk)

Anthony, I regret that I cannot agree with your use of excessive annotations to references 4 and 8 in the Chemical element article. I thought we had settled that some time ago amicably after discussion. I still object to your piggybacking quotes, abstracts or actual word-for-word content from a book or other publication by including them with the references to those books or other publications. See my detailed comments at Talk:Chemical elements. I think that any further discussion of this subject belongs on that Talk page rather than here. Regards, Milton Beychok 06:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Secrecy

I thought it better to answer your question here rather than add another digression to the forum.

I can't remember where I originally got the idea. Maybe I'll find it again some time. meanwhile, let's go back to first principles. The policy page you referred me to says there are two types of editors: general and specialty. Some editors, e.g. Aleta and Barry Smith, have notices on their user pages apparently putting them in the latter category. Is it to be assumed that all editors without such notices are general?

Yes, I would think so. I believe there are only a very few specialist editors.Milton Beychok 17:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, the policy page says general editors have authority over all general and mid-range articles in their workgroup, but over specialized articles only in their own areas of specialization. So how are authors to find out which level an article is; and who is a specialist if it's a specialized one?

Good question. Another reason why having more workgroups would be useful. Many if not most of our current workgroup are too broad, meaning that they encompass too many disciplines. For example, chemistry, physics, math and engineering could all be split into a number of workgroups. I am sure there are others as well.Milton Beychok 17:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So, to get back to the general question: how are authors to find out which editors have what authority over any given article? Peter Jackson 15:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Another good question, but one that can be solved by posting a query on the Talk page of the given article and/or on a few of the pertinent workgroup editors.Milton Beychok 17:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And another point I should have added, relating to the topic we've been discussing: how do you tell which of the editors with theoretical authority are in practice sufficiently active to be willing to exercise it? Peter Jackson 10:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The top banner of each workgroup now provides a link to a listing of active and inactive editors. That is one place to look, but I have found it to be inaccurate. Another is the "User contribution" link of each user, in the left-hand navigation panel. But both are ineffective when a workgroup has only one or two really active editors. In my case, I am the only really active engineering Editor other than Howard Berkowitz (in the very narrow field of miltary engineering) and Anthony Argyrou who very occasionally appears for a day or so at a time. A recent engineering newcomer, Karl Schubert, may become active ... time will tell. As we all know, the real problem is that we need many more active Editors. Milton Beychok 16:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Agent Orange

If the article addresses the sensitivity of analytic methods at given times, yes. As I understand the problem with Agent Orange, the dioxin concentration was below the minimum sensitivity of the analytical instrumentation used in the herbicide factory; it's not clear to me if it was undetectable by any contemporary methods, or only by research techniques.

I still cringe at memories of my organic quantitative analysis instructor, who was known for giving out samples with trace concentrations undetectable by the university lab, but detectable by the industrial labs of her part-time students who might just pass them to the lab at work. She'd fail them for cheating if they'd find correct unknowns that were undetectable by honest classwork. :-) Howard C. Berkowitz 22:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Need your input

Hi Milton, check out the latest on the Bot process... CZ:Bot status. D. Matt Innis 03:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Approval of Joule-Thomson effect

Milton, from what I can tell, the latest version was completed at 17:57 Sept 30 (the times might be different on your machine due to the time zones) and all three editors signed off AFTER that time, so it appears that all three editors have seen and endorsed the chagnes that you made. If you had not brought this to my attention, I would have had to do this work on my own before approval (which is a pain and time consuming). If an author were to do document this same information on the talk page, then, as far as I'm concerned, they can change the date (so long as it is documented that ALL THREE EDITORS have SEEN the version that is is being updating it to). Does that sound reasonable? D. Matt Innis 13:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)