User talk:D. Matt Innis

To Approve articles

Confirm Accounts

Diberri citation maker

Help Wikiformatting

Citizendium Test Wiki

CZ:How to use Bugzilla

 Where Matt lives it is approximately: 16:36

D. Matt Innis

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10

Edited your entire talk page to add this subject at the top

Thus, it is not too hard to get around the system, if one chooses. Delete this when you want to. Just a demo that it works on more than my own talk page. Joel M. Williams 19:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Oxytocin ready for approval

Matt, I updated the version number of Oxytocin after vetting Gareth's last minute edits. I believe you can approve it now. Thanks. —Anthony.Sebastian 21:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do, Anthony. I'll wait till I get home from work when I can stay focused. D. Matt Innis 21:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin

I want to know Matt why you have decided to correct Jimmy Page's birthdate in the Led Zeppelin, after refusing my request to do so a number of months ago citing "Only a music editor can correct it". This was over a series of emails I sent to you earlier this year. Meg Ireland 11:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I realized you were right. D. Matt Innis 12:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Appeal of block 1549

Hi Matt,

please take a look at CZ:Managing Editor/2010/3 - Appeal of block 1549 and comment in the Statement by the Chief Constable section as you see fit. Thank you!

--Daniel Mietchen 21:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Daniel. I have nothing to add publicly at this point. I believe it's part of my duty to keep behavior issues confidential (for a variety of reasons) until the MC or an Appeal Board directs me otherwise. D. Matt Innis 01:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I have tagged Template:Free space/Metadata for speedy deletion because it was a left-over after I renamed the "Free space" article to Free space (electromagnetism) as requested by our new physics author, John R. Brews, who created the article. Would you please do the deletion? Milton Beychok 18:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

New editors

Milton thought you might have an answer to this. Is there a page somewhere I could put on my watchlist that would notify me of the induction of new editors? Peter Jackson 14:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Approved version of Thylakoid should have been the current draft version

Matt, the version of Thylakoid you recently approved is an old version. It doesn't have the many edits I made in response to Chris Day's comments and suggestions, including new images, text, and references. I wouldn't have approved that version, only the current draft version.

Will you re-check? Anthony.Sebastian 03:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Anthony, since Chris did not add his name, I had to go with the version that Gareth approved. I assume he will probably approve the new version as well, but he needs to read it before I can put his name on it. Let me know when he does. If Chris doesn't return, I'll add your name as a second editor. D. Matt Innis 03:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Matt. Still, I'd ask that the approval be revoked (or whatever the correct word) and the Approval Date be advanced for two weeks (from now), to give Chris a change to review the Draft version. I'm embarrassed to see that earlier version among the Approved Articles, and that version shouldn't represent CZ's best current effort.

Forgot to sign. Anthony.Sebastian 04:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Anthony, I'll let Gareth take a look and see if he wants to update the version number. D. Matt Innis 13:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to protect the page, Matt. --Peter Schmitt 23:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did. D. Matt Innis 04:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Matt, on the Thylakoid Talk Page, Gareth said he'd be happy to update. Where does that leave us? I'm still concern about having that earlier version among CZ's Approved Articles. It doesn't deal with Chris's concerns, which the current draft does. Anthony.Sebastian 06:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

HI Anthony, I'm glad to report that I can now update to the new version (Gareth changed the approval date to the 10th so I had to wait a day!). D. Matt Innis 13:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay to confirm an account for a 14-year old? Can't find any guidance in the Charter.

Matt, is it okay to confirm a new account as an author for a 14-year old boy? Does the Charter discuss minimum age anywhere? Milton Beychok 23:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Until the MC decides differently, we approve as young as 13, but do not advertise the age (we only mention that they are in school). D. Matt Innis 01:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind the following guidance from CZ:User pages:

Minors are asked not to include any personal information about themselves, nor about where they live, but they should still give some nonspecific information about their interests and education (no school names, please) --Chris Key 10:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Petroleum refining processes is in need of re-approval

Matt, the Petroleum refining processes article is badly in need of re-approval. For example, a completely new section, "Average refinery product yields" was added many months ago and there have been some other much smaller copy edits.

The article is in the Engineering and the Chemistry workgroups. The problem is that I have been the only active main-stream engineering editor for the past two years (to me, main-stream engineering does not include military engineering) and there is now only one chemistry editor (David Volk) and he is not always available. Is there anything that can be done to get that article re-approved?

According to the Google Analytics data recently added by Chris Key, that article is one that has attracted a great many visitor to CZ. Milton Beychok 22:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Milt, I won't get involved if you don't want -- I just saw this -- but may I observe my principal professional field is systems, software and network/electronics engineering, of which military and intelligence analysis is one aspect. There are aspects of military engineering where I would have no opinion. Assessing product yields, however, is a routine part of intelligence analysis for economics or targets. After all, how would someone decide to bomb your particular refinery? "Military engineers" are usually the guys that deal with minefields and bridges.  :-) Howard C. Berkowitz 14:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Howard, no slur was intended. There are quite literally dozens of engineering disciplines nowadays. However, to me, main stream engineering includes Mechanical, Electrical, Civil, Aeronautical and Chemical Engineering.

As for the re-approval of Petroleum refining processes, I would prefer that it be re-approved by some chemist or engineer who is very familiar with the refining of crude oil and I was hoping that Matt could help find such a CZ member. Milton Beychok 18:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Milt, I don't know of anyone, yet. D. Matt Innis 19:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

New user Claude BINEAU

Matt, I confirmed this new user with the last name all capitalized because that is how the name was written in the user's application. Is that okay? Or should I rename that user page as "Claude Bineau ? What do you suggest? Milton Beychok 18:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

All-capitals is custom in a French context, which we don't have here, so I'd think it's better to rename to English custom. --Daniel Mietchen 23:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In a French context of *what*? I spent 25 years in Tahiti reading French stuff in various contexts and came across very few names entirely in CAPS. And most Frenchmen would write "C. Bineau" rather than Claude, I think. In any case, I think that to conform with CZ conventions, the name should be put into proper form. Hayford Peirce 00:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely lower case. D. Matt Innis 01:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Using caps (or caps and small caps) for names is sometimes usual and useful (if handwritten, for instance), but there is nothing specifically French involved. There is no reason to make a name stand out like this. --Peter Schmitt 01:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Editorial Council intervention

I am sending you this request concerning the UFO article. I have also posted this request on the UFO talk page. MA

I am requesting Editorial Council intervention to disallow Howard from making any rulings concerning any technical matters in this article. Howard has established himself in the editorial role and allowing him to make technical rulings (or any other article rulings) would be a conflict of interest. I have also sent this request to the Chief Constable for review as I am not sure of the exact procedure concerning this request. The Chief Constable can refer this request to the appropriate channels. Thanks! Mary Ash 05:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

To clarify I would like Howard removed as editor from this article. He's established strong bias not only against well documented information but towards me personally. I would like his editorial role removed and another editor assigned. Mary Ash 05:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Mary, this is something that you need to bring to the Ombudsman who can facilitate your request through the system. You are correct that these are decisions that are not the concern of the constabulary. D. Matt Innis 12:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Applications

Matt, a couple of my Homeopathic colleagues applied to become authors/editors here, but none of their applications have been accepted yet. Can you check and tell me what the problem is/was?-Ramanand Jhingade 16:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Matt, the only homeopath that requested an author and editor account in the last month or so was Ramanand Jhingade himself ... which I rejected because he already had an account as an author and I had decided not to confirm any further editorships until the Editorial Council re-defined the requirements for editorship. In any event, in my opinion, the biography he submitted was almost identical to the one on his current user page ... and it did not convince me that he warranted an editorship. Milton Beychok 18:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ramanand, what were there names and I'll see if I can look back in the author request records to see what happened. I'll need them quickly because the list of rejected applications self-deletes after one month or so. Milt is right, there have been no editor acceptances of any kind since around November, but they may have been accepted as authors but didn't get their emails. It's hard to say without knowing their names. D. Matt Innis 00:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

When clusters should be subpages

Matt, Peter Jackson has (correctly in my view) suggested that Books of the Bible should actually be a subpage of Bible.

If I just move the cluster to Bible/Catalogs/Books of the Bible, will that work, or will it just mess things up. What effect, if any, would it have on the talk page and the history?

I think there are probably a good few articles like this, that predate the cluster system and/or the catalog subpage.

Knowing what to do and having that recorded somewhere would be a good idea, I think.

Aleta Curry 00:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Bible is a redirect to The Bible, and this only sort of "see also". But yes, I agree, Books of the Bible is a Catalog. Since there is not yet a Catalogs subpage it has to be created to list the (to be expected) several Catalogs. You can move the talk page with the page (it will then be available with the "Discussion" button of the Catalog. The history will be moved with the pages. --Peter Schmitt 01:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

So, Peter, it seems you are saying that the page Books of the Bible and its talk page should be "moved" to The Bible/Catalogs/Books of the Bible. Makes sense to me. D. Matt Innis 02:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you look at the massage article?

I've been cleaning this up. In particular, some of the therapies mention spinal work, etc., and compare and contrast with chiropractic. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You can review my ME talk page comments

Matt you can review my ME talk page comments. Thanks! Mary Ash 16:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note my comment at Talk:Owens Lake and take the action requested

Matt, please read my last comment at Talk:Owens Lake and take the action requested. This is urgent to avoid another distasteful event. Milton Beychok 20:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Matt, I can see that you are on CZ from your post at Talk:Monty Hall problem and I therefore assume that you have seen this post of mine about Talk:Owens Lake. I also assume that you have now received my email that includes copies of the emails to and from the U.S. EPA by me.

I don't quite understand why you have not yet responded or why you have not yet undone the entire set of additions made to the OwensLake article by Mary Ash at 11:04 PST this morning. Please explain.

Mary, has now agreed that she reported data that have now been acknowledged as being incorrect and misleading by the very man she named as being her source. She has also removed part of her revisions this morning. The other part of her revisions (which she did not remove) still includes the acknowledged incorrect 300,000 tons (see item 9) and that part is also a very extensive, exact word-for-word copy of the out-dated EPA source webpage ... which in itself is a no-no. Milton Beychok 22:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not state the information was incorrect or misleading. What I did state was the information was updated and based on that fact the information was removed. Also, the facts I stated should belong in the article as they are historical and they were backed by local, state and federal sources and they were correct for that time. I also prefaced the facts with the statement of some sources state...I also said I defer to the editors at Citizendium as they are editors for a reason. Mary Ash 23:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Mary, the fact remains, no matter how convolutely you deny it, that you added content to an article which has been proven to be incorrect and misleading by the very man you quoted as your source. And the fact remains that you have not yet deleted the word-for-word copy of the EPA article that you also added this morning and which still contains the incorrect 300,000 tons (see item 9) as well as other outdated material. Trying to include incorrect data because historically they were once considered as correct is about as convoluted as it can be. That is absolutely nonsense. When will you ever learn to just admit a mistake and then move on?

Of course, you can be excused as having added that data because you did not know that it was incorrect until I sent you my copies of the emails to and from the EPA. But it is inexcusable for you not to remove every single word of your additions made to the Owens Lake article at 11:04 AM PST this morning. Milton Beychok 23:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Matt, I still don't understand why you have not yet responded. Milton Beychok 23:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Milt, I have just returned from work (I was on earlier, but have to work during the day) and have just read your email and just responded to the orange notice that there are messages on my talk page. I am not impressed with the tone of this talk page so far and am moving to the Owens LAke talk page now. D. Matt Innis 00:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Matt, I truly regret that you are not impressed with the tone of this letter. I regret even more that I have already spent 5-6 hours on this today when I have other important work to do. I have no apologies to offer on anything I wrote on any talk pages today. Regards and thanks, Milton Beychok 01:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Milt, I apologize. I read more into your comment than you wrote. What I am not impressed with is that this appears to be an honest error, yet the urgency made it sound as if you were distressed. When I reread, I see that you were only informing me and wandering why I hadn't responded. I have responded now and hope that the article can move forward. D. Matt Innis 01:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Howard's comment

I'll have to mention that I, too, am disturbed by the Constable Comment on the talk page. There is a behavioral problem here, and it's not Milt's. Now, there is every precedent for an environmentally related article to be in Engineering, Subgroup Environmental Engineering. I am truly tired — and I'm not speculating on motivations but on posts — the constant defensiveness and complaining that the Constabulary tolerates. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"Calmly start over" is not going to work when there is a chronic problem. You can't continue to sweep it under the rug and say it's equally everyone's fault. How is it that I can have complete articles blanked, but it's naughty naughty when someone says feelings are hurt and it isn't what volunteers do? Howard C. Berkowitz 01:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that you have a problem with my actions. While I would like to respond, it is not my intention to become part of the problem and ask that you bring your complaints to the appropriate authority. D. Matt Innis 01:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

JDAM

I left this message on the discussion page: As best as I can tell no merge was done with this article as there is absolutely nothing left of what I wrote. Granted the article ended up being a dupe as there was an existing article with the wrong name leading to this mix-up. I am filing a complaint as a merge was not done instead, without explanation, almost everything, if not everything, was arbitrarily and capriciously removed. BTW the photo of the JDAM was correct as verified by my husband who is a mechanical engineer with some experience in this field.Mary Ash 01:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mary, the purpose of the merge is to get the histories of both articles at the same place. That was performed by me, so the histories should be all in the same place. It is up to the authors (and editors) to make teh necessary content edits to restore whatever parts that you want. That's not something a constable can do, particularly when there is continued discussion. D. Matt Innis 02:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Matt! Who is supposed to do the merging? The editor or the author? Just curious... Mary Ash 03:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The people that are authoring the page will have to do the merging of content. Do pay attention to any "rulings" that an eidtor may have made. I think Howard has something about a picture that you are not supposed to be using. D. Matt Innis 03:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Howard reverted the edits I made. I left almost (I'd say about 95% of what he wrote) in the article. He's now reverted those edits. I have sent another email to the EC for review. Mary Ash 04:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that the Managing Editor may be a better starting place, although I do question if Editor guidance is being taken. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

JMW

Matt, I'd like to see my talk page with the latest at the top although I understand most folks like it at the bottom. There appears to be no option to set it so as is done on "My contributions". Easy? Not easy to configure? Joel M. Williams 19:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

A couple of years ago, with Martin Cohen didn't we have endless fights about this? He insisted, as I recall, that he wanted stuff at the top, but he also was wont to add his comments into the *middle* of other Talk pages. Whatever it was, I recall vaguely that he aggravated enough people before he was banned that someone or other (Larry?) decreed that new comments *had* to go to the bottom of the page rather than the top, simply to prevent confusion among the Citizens. Am I wrong about this? (I sure hope I *am* wrong about this: couldn't the Editorial Council make a ruling about this if they were asked to? It involves "content", after all....) Hayford Peirce 20:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If Joel is referring to his own talk page, I'd interpret the current guidance as allowing him to format as he likes. To the best of my knowledge, however, there's no automatic way to make the + tab go to the top. Article talk pages, however, are bottom-only. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree; Hasn't the Management Council ruled that we're editors of our own Talk pages? Surely we allow this (whether it's possible I wouldn't know). Martin Cohen was banned for very substantial other reasons than this.Gareth Leng 20:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's been agreed (or decided) that one's own talk page is one's own. And I sure *hope* that Article talk pages are bottom down! As for Martin, I know -- I was just remembering that he was doing a *ton* of things that aggravated people, none of which actually got him banned, though.... To my mind, it was sort of like the Feds finally putting Al Capone away for income tax violations.... Hayford Peirce 20:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the final straw was posting an email, something that still irritates me although the ban couldn't have happened to someone more deserving.

• Capone's First Law: A .38 beats four aces
• Capone's Second Law: You can get more done with a smile and a gun than with a smile alone.

Howard C. Berkowitz 20:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, he vanished on Jan. 7th, which is my birthday, so Larry was obviously thinking of me! Hayford Peirce 20:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Did not know I would open Pandora's box. I'll just do with what I've got until a change is otherwise deemed necessary.Joel M. Williams 21:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Aw, we're just babblin', I think. Hayford Peirce 22:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I reversed my talk page to reflect what I had/have in mind.Joel M. Williams 03:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I know. You did it as I was writing you a note and threw me for a loop :D D. Matt Innis 03:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Does this get added to the top?

Just checking to see if things get automatically added to the top of the page. D. Matt Innis 21:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I presume you did a "+" and it was put at the bottom as is the current practice. Some one could have added it to the top (as I did) or anywhere else in the list by editing YOUR whole talk page rather than using the "+" feature.Joel M. Williams 22:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I did :) I'm not sure I can retrain people to use my talk page differently... I'll see how it works out for you first, haha! D. Matt Innis 00:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Since this seems to be the only thing going on at CZ tonight, I'm going to chime in. I think you will have a hard time trying to retrain everyone to write at the top instead of the bottom. It's kinda like trying to teach us westerners to write from right to left. Still, I agree that it is logical and wish you best of luck in doing so. I recall an old USENET saying:

Top posting!

What's the most annoying thing on USENET?

Good night! Johan A. Förberg 00:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

All seems a moot point if Key is the person who actually does any changes (posted to JMW's talk: I certainly won't be spending any time on changing it, or even allowing the option to change it. --Chris Key 20:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)). Just seemed like a logical option for each author to be able to designate how their own page worked (in "My preferences"). Oh well, I have made my point here and on my own talk page. Interesting to test how CZ works. You'll note I chose to indent my comment to the same level as I first entered the commenting. Seemed the most logical as does bottom-posting on an opened subject. Guess I'll go work on something else. Joel M. Williams 00:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Matt, I have deleted my "top entry" of a subject on this YOUR talk page. Back to normal. Joel M. Williams 00:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)