User talk:Jess Key/Archive 1

From Citizendium
< User talk:Jess Key
Revision as of 09:49, 7 March 2024 by John Leach (talk | contribs) (Text replacement - "CZ:Constabulary" to "CZ:Moderator Group")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome!

Citizendium Getting Started
Register | Quick Start | About us | FAQ | The Author Role | The Editor Role
A dozen essentials | How to start a new article | For Wikipedians | Other
Home
Getting Started Organization Technical Help Content Policy Article Lists
Initiatives Communication Editor Policy Editorial Council Constabulary
Welcome Page

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start. You'll probably want to know how to get started as an author. Just look at CZ:Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list (do join!) and the blog. Please also join the workgroup mailing list(s) that concern your particular interests. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forums is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any constable for help, too. Me, for instance! Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! Hayford Peirce 17:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


WoW

Hello Chris. I just wanted to say you made some nice edits to the WoW page. Thanks for jumping in! --Eric Clevinger 04:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedydelete requests

Chris, you should read CZ:Article Deletion Policy#Procedures for deletion marking and deletion to do it right (otherwise, Hayford may ignore your requests). --Peter Schmitt 00:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. I thought I was doing, but I'll make sure I re-read that page next time. --Chris Key 06:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
If it is not clear: You put an "unprotected" template on a definition subpage, and you did not point to the talk page you wanted deleted. --Peter Schmitt 07:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice: Limited avaliability during May

I currently have two assignments due in on the 7th May and one on each of the 14th, 21st and 27th. I also have to deliver two presentations during this time. Due to this, my time on CZ will be somewhat limited during May. --Chris Key 17:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

In case you have any say on these or future assignments, I suggest taking a look at CZ:Eduzendium. In any case, good luck! --Daniel Mietchen 21:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Citizendium access rights management

Let's use your talk page, since you started the thread on the forum. I will first summarize what I believe are the substantive issues you raise and then give you the chance to respond. I am basing my summary on the forum post you made today, i.e., post on CZ access rights management. Feel free to correct my interpretation of your positions or add to them if I have not summarized them completely. Once we have agreed on the statement of the problem, then we can discuss the approach you suggest.

  • The MW software is fully flexible and capable of supporting any group/rights architecture suitable for CZ.
  • The existing access rights architecture does not quite fit the roles and responsibilities associated with various CZ governance positions. For example, Constables need to perform certain operations on the wiki, some of which require Sysop privileges, some of which do not. Some rights granted to Constables by virtue of their position as Sysops on the wiki are not useful to them in the pursuit of their Constable role. Creating an architecture that more closely follows the governance structure increases the transparency of access rights management and use at CZ. Furthermore, it is useful to implement fine granularity access control structures that give users only the rights they need and no more. This improves the overall security posture of CZ.
  • When CZers without extra permissions observe terms like "Bureaucrat", "Sysop" and "Constable", they may become confused and think, for example, that the Sysop role is identified with the Constable role. They become frustrated when they contact a Sysop, asking them to perform a Constable function and are told that a Sysop does not have the organizational right to preform this function (even if they can technically perform it).
  • Since the technology used by CZ to develop and deliver its content is not monolithic (i.e., it is implemented by various software systems that do not interact with each other), we should clarify roles within these software systems by using group names similar, if not identical, to the roles defined within CZ.

Please correct any mistakes I have made in representing your position. Also, if you think I have missed important points or not quite presented them correctly, feel free to modify my description in any way you think is best. Dan Nessett 23:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Before I respond, Hayford has requested (in the forum thread) that we keep this discussion on the forums not on a talk page. If you wish to move this conversation there, feel free to delete it from here. --Chris Key 23:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Security stuff

(FU) Image: Blizzard Entertainment
A Battle.net Authenticator.
(PD) Image: Chris Key
(PD) Image: Chris Key
(PD) Image: Chris Key

I'm coming along the security things you wanted for MMORPG (if I remember the right article). Might be some other video game variants.

As I remember, you have some graphics we could use for the security token, which is a lemma although I'll expand it shortly. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Howard. I think this is the image you were thinking of. I would add it, but I have no idea what to put as a caption. It was currently for the article World of Warcraft which has a section on the security aspect provided by its authenticator, however it will be applicable to a couple of other games too. --Chris Key 16:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, feel free to use these. They are the PinSentry provided for online banking by the bank Barclays in the UK. --Chris Key 16:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Promotion to Games Editor

After being nudged by Milton, I have added the Games Editor tag to your page. As this workgroup is somewhat hard to define expertise for, it will be up to you to only approve articles that you are really an expert in, as far as one can be an expert in Games. David E. Volk 23:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks David. I will of course limit my Editor activities to those articles that I am an expert in. --Chris Key 07:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
You do, however, have an advantage in responding to accusations of irritated people who claim you are playing games with them... Howard C. Berkowitz 14:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations, Chris. As you know, our main interests are quite different. But, maybe, occasionally we may be able to help each other. --Peter Schmitt 23:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Green bar

Do you think it the green ToApprove bar could be on a page like this too? I'm not sure if that would be possible/simple or not. Chris Day 02:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that as I have just tried on the test wiki here. However, it would not be able to just show Biology articles that have been nominated for approval and it would also appear when someone clicks 'Related changes' in the toolbox when viewing an article. Would this be acceptable? --Chris Key 07:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
To me, yes. Chris Day 11:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please look at this discussion of "list-defined references" in the latest modification (Sept. 2009) of Cite.php

Please look at this discussion on Chris Day's Talk page here. Having that "list-defined references" functionality available on CZ would be a great improvement. I have tested it on my sandbox at WP and it works very nicely. Then I tested it in one of my CZ sandboxes and it does not work here. What needs to be done to get that functionality here in CZ? Thanks in advance, Milton Beychok 22:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The list defined references functionality is added to a more recent version of the MW extension than is available for MW 1.13.2 (on which CZ is based). However, normally updated extensions have no problem running on old versions of the core software. We are currently planning to update the live wiki to the standard MW extensions. Once that is complete we can test the new Cite code on the test wiki and determine whether it is compatible (actually, we will test it first on a personal development machine). If so, then we could move it to the live wiki.
However, this will take some time. We have a bunch of other stuff to work on (refactoring the CZ specific functionality out of the core software so we can upgrade to a more recent version of MW). So, I wouldn't expect the defined references functionality to become available in the near future. As always, you should submit a bug ticket requesting this enhancement. Otherwise, it is likely to be forgotten. Dan Nessett 15:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I just uploaded the version of the Cite extension with the list defined references logic to my local development machine. It immediately threw an error (when attempting to display a page other than Welcome to Citizendium). It appears the new functionality relies on some updated functionality in ParserFunctions that isn't in the 1.13.2 version. So, it is not likely we will have this functionality soon. We need to get the standard MW extensions installed on the live wiki; refactor the CZ mods out of the MW 1.13.2 core into an extension and patch kit and then when that is working, upgrade to a version of MW that supports this new functionality (probably 1.16.x). This is going to take some time. Dan Nessett 16:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Dan for the info. I have created the bug ticket as you requested. Milton Beychok 17:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Even if we can't have it right now it is good to know that htis will be available in the future. Thanks for running with this Milt. Chris Day 22:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

About application from Jonathan Gray

Chris, as I asked on Hayford's Talk page, is that fact that Johnathan's application is still in the application queue going to create problems when he tries to re-apply? I never approved his application, nor did I put it "on hold" nor did I "reject" it ... it is still pending in the queue. Milton Beychok 21:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that now he has been rejected he should be able to reapply after the 24 hours. I am by no means certain. If he does encounter problems he may need to pick a variation of his name, such as using a middle initial or shortening his first name to John. --Chris Key 21:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I had to add a null edit to the Set theory/Draft to get it to come out of the ToApprove Category list and green section of Recent changes. I'm telling you this because it likely won't be the last time and I might forget by then ;) D. Matt Innis 21:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, had to do it on Kerckhoffs' Principle/Draft as well. D. Matt Innis 14:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure how we can avoid this. As an experiment, you could try not doing it next time to see if the job queue just needs time to catch up. --Chris Key 16:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Great Siege of Scarborough Castle/Draft.. is on the list now. Let's see what happens in the next 24 hours. D. Matt Innis 13:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The job queue length is 126,811, as shown on Special:Statistics. This might take a while. --Chris Key 15:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
At 9:07 a.m. PDT Dan Nessett runJobs as part of the upgrade process. Jobs may back up in queue until upgrade is completed, so perhaps today isn't the day to test this! --Chris Key 16:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Haha, apparently not [1] :-D. Matt Innis 18:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It's like the husband is always the last one to know! Lemme know wot yer up to, mytes! Hayford Peirce 18:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Basically when an article is approved, it is not disappearing from the green approval bar. This can be fixed by making an edit to the new draft page (just adding a space is enough), like you did. What we were testing was to see if the page would disappear from the list after a while, once the job queue has had time to catch up. We'll be sure to let you know in advance for the next test! --Chris Key 19:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I *think* that last week, when I approved an article, it disappeared almost instantly *without* anyone jogging it.... Hayford Peirce 21:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
For reliable experiments, the update process must be finished, I think.--Peter Schmitt 21:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Bot request

Chris, while we're waiting for Daniel, please fill out a bot request and feel free to make the process easier and more user friendly with your template knowledge! Thanks. D. Matt Innis 21:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... the instructions are vague to say the least, the link to add a new request appears to add the wrong template, the correct template preloader has several parameters that do nothing, and the whole thing is a mess! I'll make a bot request for now, and see if I can make a better system for you soon. --Chris Key 22:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Doom

Chris, the guys that wrote those games articles were really motiviated for awhile but didn't have any editors to get their articles approved. Maybe you could contact one of them and see if they'll do some of the edits for the article. Just a thought. D. Matt Innis 01:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I emailed Fredrik Johansson (who did most of the work on the article, is an admin at WP and runs the Doom Wiki) earlier today asking if he would be willing to come and put some final touches on the article. So far I haven't had a reply, but we shall see what happens. --Chris Key 02:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately Fredrik has emailed me back saying he doesn't have time to edit anything on CZ any more. --Chris Key 11:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

missing texvc executable

Chris, probably you know already that our texvc does not work (yet?); I face it on Theory (mathematics)#Univalent or multivalent. Probably it is not your problem, but hopefully you know whom to inform (if at all). Boris Tsirelson 18:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Boris, I'm not able to fix this myself, but I have reported the problem in the correct place so hopefully this can be fixed soon. For future reference, the correct place to report bugs is at http://bugs.citizendium.org. In this case I have done it for you (click here to view) --Chris Key 18:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Oops, I am sorry, it was my TeX error. However, why the misleading message "missing texvc executable"? Boris Tsirelson 19:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Probably texvc was fixed a bit before; now it gives the right error message "Failed to parse" on the old version of that page. Thank you for the help. I was (and still is) lasy to register at Bugzilla. Why is it needed, to get a separate account only for reporting a simple error? Boris Tsirelson 19:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Dan Nessett saw the bug and fixed it. There are a few reasons for using Bugzilla:
* We used to use an email system where bugs were reported to bugs@citizendium.org. However, most of these bug reports are now lost to us as time and has gone on and people have moved on.
* When you create a bug report an email is sent to Greg (the technical lead), Dan Nessett and myself. If it is a template bug, Daniel Meitchen is also emailed. This means that bugs are quickly noticed by the relevant people and fixed - as you saw with this bug.
* Fixes to complicated bugs need discussion amongst the technical team as to how to fix them. This can sometimes include attaching patches or executable files. This is not possible on the wiki.
--Chris Key 19:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This was more than a TeX error. It gave the same error message with correct TeX code. Am I right that the path to the TeX executive was incorrect?
Curiously, old TeX code displayed correctly -- does the wiki store the TeX displays? --Peter Schmitt 20:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it was a configuration error. I believe that the wiki does store the TeX displays as images once they are created, this may explain why you were able to see old code correctly. --Chris Key 20:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Jess_Key/Archive_1&oldid=927136"