User talk:Jitse Niesen

Jitse Niesen

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2

User:Subpagination Bot

Why is this a "bureaucrat" account? Thanks. Aaron Schulz 12:51, 13 January 2008 (CST)

I think Larry made it bureaucrat so that I could turn on the 'bot' flag myself. But ask him to be sure. It doesn't need the 'bureaucrat' flag. -- Jitse Niesen 13:12, 13 January 2008 (CST)

Haha! He told me to ask you! OK, so I suppose the right can be removed then. Aaron Schulz 13:31, 13 January 2008 (CST)

Yes, go ahead. -- Jitse Niesen 13:32, 13 January 2008 (CST)

Core articles / graph theory

I just noticed that graph theory was in the list of core articles for both computers and mathematics. Math is a better home for it than computers, so I removed it from the computers list of core articles. However, if mathematics decides not to include graph theory in its final list, I would appreciate a heads-up so I can restore it to our list.

Thanks, Warren Schudy 14:10, 13 January 2008 (CST)

Bot request

Would you mind using your bot to fill in a number of categories? I recently wrote templates for the Categories of the form Category:[Workgroup name] [Subpage type] (like Category:Geography External Link Subpages, and it'd be nice if you could use your bot to fill them in.

The way it would work was, for each Workgroup name (from the CZ:Workgroups page), put this:

{{Workgroup Related Articles subpages|group=group name}}

on Category:group name Related Article Subpages and this

{{Workgroup Bibliography subpages|group=group name}}

on Category:group name Bibliographies and this

{{Workgroup External Links subpages|group=group name}}

on Category:group name External Link Subpages.

I'll have more subpage types templated pretty soon, but these are the default, most common, ones.

Let me know if you can help with this! -- JesseWeinstein 15:42, 24 January 2008 (CST)

Sure, that should be no problem. -- Jitse Niesen 10:47, 26 January 2008 (CST)

This has now been done. I didn't change the 21 pages that already existed, but I made a list of them at User:Subpagination Bot/Task 2. -- Jitse Niesen 12:12, 26 January 2008 (CST)

Wonderful! Thanks you. I'll have more for you real soon now... JesseWeinstein 03:05, 28 January 2008 (CST)

And now I do: Works (Category:X Works Subpages), Discography (Category;X Discographies), Filmography (Category:X Filmographies), Catalogs (same category name), and Timelines (also same category name). You may want to only create the Discography categories that are populated, but all the others are already well covered, so you might as well make all of them. We've got Special:Wantedcategories down to 576 (from over 700), and this will certainly help finish it off. If you want, you can wait until I (or you, if you like) generate templates for more of the subpage types, then do them all in one batch. Thanks! JesseWeinstein 02:53, 29 January 2008 (CST)

All done. I just created all of them; it's not really a problem if they're empty. Three categories already existed; again, see User:Subpagination Bot/Task 2 (at the bottom). -- Jitse Niesen 09:39, 29 January 2008 (CST)

And the rest of them: Gallery (Category:X Galleries), Audio (Category:X Audio Subpages), Video (same), Code (same), Tutorials (Category:X Tutorials), Addendum, (Category:X Addendum Subpages) & Signed Articles (Category:X Signed Articles). I didn't bother to make one for Student Level because we don't have any, yet.

We still need to figure out what to put on the Approved ones, and some of the main categories don't exist yet, either... JesseWeinstein 00:13, 30 January 2008 (CST)

Done, even the rather ominous sounding Category:Military Tutorials ;) I took care of the one category that already existed, Category:Food Science Galleries. -- Jitse Niesen 13:05, 30 January 2008 (CST)

Oh Recipes!

Please have a look at CZ:Proposals/Recipes_Subpage_and_Accompanying_Usage_Policy#Concrete_Steps_Ahead and kindly do the needful. Supten Sarbadhikari 22:24, 2 March 2008 (CST)

Proposals on Naming Conventions

Jitse - I've submitted a proposal on Naming Conventions for Biographies, which has been assigned to the ad hoc queue, as has another proposal regarding Standard naming of biomedical (and other) articles. The proposals policy page says that the Editorial Council has remit over naming conventions.

So - as I want to move my proposal forward, I need to know if it will remain with an ad hoc decision-making process, or if it should be sent on to the Editorial Council. If the former, I'd like to get some idea what exactly I should do with it. Because of the EC issue, I'm going to ask Larry to look at this question here. Anthony Argyriou 12:21, 3 March 2008 (CST)

Hi Anthony--the reason I put it under ad hoc is that the Editorial Council should not be burdened with proposals on every small detail. There are many details of policy that the Editorial Council can pass "by acclamation," i.e., simply giving Council members the opportunity to vote on it. We've run many things past the Council this way, with no complaints so far. Notice the "caveat" I put on CZ:Proposals/Naming Conventions for Biographies. --Larry Sanger 12:38, 3 March 2008 (CST)

Ah - I'd missed that edit. I will canvass the contributors so far, and ask for their concurrence. I'm not on cz-editcouncil - can I post to it, or do I need someone else to? Anthony Argyriou 13:06, 3 March 2008 (CST)

Hi Jitse: I assume the next step is agreement by the Approvals and Feedback group? I've ammended the form accordinglyGareth Leng 10:57, 4 March 2008 (CST)

If you are happy with it, then you can submit it to the group. I've no idea how they will decide since it looks like the group is still being formed. -- Jitse Niesen 17:11, 4 March 2008 (CST)

Proposal on external feedback

I've set a new deadline and changed next step to getting permission from the approvals group. This may be a bit challenging, since as far as I know that group has never made any official decisions before. Warren Schudy 10:12, 6 March 2008 (CST)

Proposal on translations of approved articles

Jitse,

Thanks for your heads-up, I rewrote and completed my proposal. Please advise on whether you think it is well formed. And feel free to add your name behind any of the implementation points. :o) Jens Mildner 16:33, 8 March 2008 (CST)

Proposal on crediting authors

I think the credit proposal should be converted into an issue. According to the rules you're supposed to supervise that process. This should have been done a while ago, but since the proposal process is so new no one remembered. See my recent comment in the proposal and the relevant paragraphs of the proposal policy. Warren Schudy 00:33, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

Too late, Warren: it's already before the Editorial Council. Besides, the way an issue would be considered by the Editorial Council (i.e., by parliamentary procedure) is precisely via the amendment process, which we are going to use. --Larry Sanger 01:13, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

Internationalization sandbox

Thanks for this opportunity to change the deadline. Aleta determined this deadline, and I accepted it when i became the driver. In the beginning, this looked perfectly alright: many people were sharing their insights in the discussion section.

But the requirement that was added after I became the driver (see here), that the proposal "should be generally vetted by the community, not just the Executive Committee." and that "there must be broad (if not unanimous) support for the proposal before it moves on to the Executive Committee") made the success of this proposal appear unlikely, since we already had a fair number of Nays.

Louise Valmoria, Aleta Curry and I brought some good points, I think we're addressing problems, but the activity on this page remains close to zero.

My feeling is that I should reformulate the proposal to reflect those new insights, and other good ideas that might be brought up. I will then invite all people who contributed to this proposal page to reassess the proposal, and then, if it works well enough, it will be possible to discuss details. My general impression is that the struggle for a consensus could be damaging to the proposal: I'd rather have a proposal that gathers many passionate partisans and some opponents who would tolerate to give it a try. My understanding is that many things in CZ are determined and done without a consensus, but through votes and great work from proponents, and this is something I have in great esteem; I think it is pro-active and realistic. I would feel a little bit naive if I tried to reach a near consensus in the next weeks. I'll reflect on this difficult problem, now that I have a new deadline.

Comments welcome!

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 14:02, 12 March 2008 (CDT)

Is this "there must be broad (if not unanimous) support for the proposal before it moves on to the Executive Committee" actually a requirement? It looks to me as though it's a suggestion from Larry, aimed at ensuring that this proposal has broad-based support. I must strongly object to this being viewed as a necessity, because it stacks the deck and flouts the democratic process, as we will clearly not get unanimous approval. I would suggest to you that if we waited for unanimous approval on every issue, very little on CZ would actually get done.

Then, too, what is "broad support" for the proposal? Define it, someone? Seems to me that the proposal already clearly has "broad support" by any reasonable definition.

Is this issue, like that other one that's taking so much time and energy and causing such hard feelings, simply to be divided into the "haves" and the "have nots"? I note that the (overwhelming?) majority of naysayers are people whose native tongue is English, on the grounds that it will damage the English-language wiki. I, like Gareth Leng, do not see why this should necessarily be so, and I think it is for the English-language speakers to demonstrate specificially how allowing people to write in their own languages *must* act to the detriment of the English-language wiki, otherwise it sounds like so much xenophobia.

Pierre-Alain, if you want to reformulate the proposal as you say in your last paragraph, above--go to it, brother!

Aleta Curry 18:28, 12 March 2008 (CDT)

I didn't write the text that Pierre-Alain is referring to (Larry did), so I can't tell you whether it's meant as a requirement or a suggestion. I think that "a proposal that gathers many passionate partisans and some opponents who would tolerate to give it a try" (Pierre-Alain's text) would count as "broad support" (Larry's text).

As far as I'm concerned, you can bring the proposal before the Executive Committee whatever level of support it has. However, I think many members of the Executive Committee will look at the support in the community when deciding on the proposal (though of course I can't speak for any members except myself).

At the moment, the proposal lacks too many details. Things like: should non-English articles live on a different wiki? If yes, who's going to set them up? What are the requirements to start another language? Will other languages fall under the same rules? Private or public wiki?

My advice would be to fill in the details and, in doing so, see whether you can get some of the nay-sayers on board. -- Jitse Niesen 08:58, 16 March 2008 (CDT)

Hi Jitse

I'm away now for 2 weeks in Japan so will have to take a break - will have to pick this up when I get backGareth Leng 08:55, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

Account name?

User:Andrew lee‎ should probably have been User:Andrew Lee, no? Oh, wait a minute, I see we already have an "Andrew Lee", and it's someone else. Well, include the second one's middle initial, or something? Jeez, disambiguating authors/editors - there's a problem I hadn't though about. I can see it now: User:Andrew Lee (disambiguation)! :-) J. Noel Chiappa 09:14, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

Thanks for the message ... even though it just means more work for me :-/ -- Jitse Niesen 09:24, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

citing authors proposal

I think that the new limited test on authorship credit proposal by Larry has taken precedent over mine. what do you think?

Lee R. Berger 10:11, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

I thought about how Larry proposal and yours were related when you created your proposal. At that time, it seems that Larry's proposal was about how the authors are identified on our own website, while yours is about how they should be identified in other places. So the proposals are clearly related, but I found them sufficiently different to not suggest merging them. What changed in Larry's proposal since you made your proposal?

On the other hand, it does make sense to consider both proposals at the same time, and I'm not sure that spreading the discussion over two pages is a good idea. In short, I don't know what's best, so it's up to you. -- Jitse Niesen 07:37, 19 March 2008 (CDT)

medical disclaimers proposal

Jitse, I rewrote the disclaimer to fit with the discussions, ie simpler, fit all professional categories, etc. The next step is for the EC to vote on the issue. If they agree, we will make a template to do this action David E. Volk 10:01, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

re editors

re Barry R. Smith, I think anyone with a PhD in math who is a math professor is well qualified in Mathematics, not just number theory. ( I have a degree in math myself) Richard Jensen 09:10, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

proposal

Hi Jitse, Good job - I just need a bit more time on this or maybe someone else needs to lead it as I am in the middle of the Palau announcement and need to tend to this a bit. Can I put it off or pawn it off to one of the other like minded individuals for a couple of weeks?

Lee R. Berger 12:50, 28 March 2008 (CDT)

My name, LISP, etc

Please, call me Noel! The LISP I am involved with is not the computer language, but a new proposal in the IETF regarding the future growth of the Internet.

Yes, I noticed you knew something about MediaWiki. (The particular message I was responding to, from David Volk, was a false alarm, so you don't need to worry about that.) I am a bit concerned that Citzendium does not have MediaWiki expert(s); since I have been reading some of the code, internals documentation, etc I was considering becoming a MediaWiki hacker for Citizendium, but as that would involve me learning much more about Apache, PHP, etc than I already know (which is not much :-) I have been putting that off. Obviously, it's well within my professional capabilities to do MediaWiki work, but the start-up transient would be large, as I would have to learn a lot about things I currently don't know much about. We'll see; apparently Larry has some plan (just announced via email) and I want to hear what that is about first... J. Noel Chiappa 17:32, 7 April 2008 (CDT)

Internationalisation sandbox

Hi!!

I'm so happy to say I'm back after a long period of work as a translator; this might emerge as a contribution to CZ, if internationalisation efforts (either mine or other's) are met with success.

I have begun the re-writing of the proposal, in all due respect for all that has been said. This is not over. I want to let you know that this proposals page will become active again, and lead to marvellous results!! Eeh... if everything goes as I plan.

Perig (Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 02:48, 19 April 2008 (CDT))

Excellent, I'm glad to hear this. -- Jitse Niesen 07:07, 19 April 2008 (CDT)

May 1st

Sure! Have it to me before May 1st. The newsletter gets updated on the last day of the current month/first day of each new month. --Robert W King 10:04, 22 April 2008 (CDT)

Recipes

Please have a look at CZ_Talk:Recipes#quality_control. I had proposed to adopt the Proposal by acclamation by May 02, 2008. However, now it seems that a vote may be required. Supten Sarbadhikari 00:18, 28 April 2008 (CDT)

Report

You're a-okay on timing. The new one will probably go out tomorrow as I haven't yet compiled it (been slightly busy closing out my contract here at work). --Robert W King 10:41, 30 April 2008 (CDT)

Number article (opening paragraphs)

I just re-did the very opening portion of the number article. I wonder if you wouldn't take a look at what I just wrote (the first two paragraphs of the article). I felt a bit bold in so doing (but hey, it says to be bold). It's just that I was dissatisfied with the previous material, to wit, "A number is an abstract mathematical object hard to define." James F. Perry 15:56, 19 May 2008 (CDT)

Final Recipe

The Editorial Council has adopted the Resolution 0009 and has formally requested Hayford Peirce to kindly form the designated group for the implementation of CZ:Proposals/Recipes_Subpage_and_Accompanying_Usage_Policy and CZ:Recipes. Supten Sarbadhikari 05:36, 26 May 2008 (CDT)

Code submission

Jitse, I opened a discussion http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1742.0.html on code submission. I like to hear your opinion, too. --Paul Wormer 09:46, 27 May 2008 (CDT)

Disambiguation mechanics proposal

Hi, comment on CZ:Proposals/Disambiguation mechanics seems to have died down, and most people seem to be either OK with it (especially after I made some tweaks), or enthusiastic. I said the next step would be at the 31st, so... what's the next step? Should I turn this into an EC Resolution? J. Noel Chiappa 13:56, 1 June 2008 (CDT)

Sorry for the late reply. Holidays and work caused me to be out of the loop for a while.

The next step is to find a member of the Editorial Council willing to turn it into a resolution. Of course you can help in writing the resolution, but the Editorial Council only considers resolutions proposed by one of its members. You can ask Chris Day for assistance since he's spoken out in favour of your proposal. If you can't find anybody, I suggest you ask the Secretary of the Editorial Council, Martin Baldwin-Edwards, for help. -- Jitse Niesen 06:06, 9 June 2008 (CDT)

Not a problem! I've been busy myself! (Good thing I happened to see your reply on RecentChanges, though... I don't normally haunt other people's User talk: pages! :-)

As it turns out I'm an EC member, so I can turn it into a resolution myself, which I will do.

One thing remains to be sorted, first, though, which is that Chris suggested we name them "{Foo}/Disambiguation" instead of "{Foo} (dismabiguation)", which is not a bad idea. I had just done the latter automatically, following WP precedent, but perhaps the subpage thing would be better. I guess I should raise that on the Forums, and see which people prefer, before putting the Resolution into the EC mechanism. J. Noel Chiappa 08:46, 9 June 2008 (CDT)