User talk:Jess Key

Jess Key

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2

You're fast, bro!

Keep 'em coming! Aleta Curry 23:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks for the help! --Chris Key 23:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Doom approved

Hi, Chris, this Version 1.0 was just Approved. Congratulations! Hayford Peirce 18:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :D A first for me, for the Games Workgroup AND for the Video Games Subgroup! --Chris Key 18:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

One must admit this is a potentially depressing heading. :-) What's next, Armageddon of the Month? (is anyone else concerned that Israel is enlarging Megiddo Airport?) Howard C. Berkowitz 18:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the video games subgroup will produce some amusing statements along these lines. Eternal Punishment approved! Grand Theft Auto approved! Spanky's Quest approved! Touch the Dead approved! Sticky Balls approved! and of course... My Little Pony Pinkie Pie's Party approved! --Chris Key 18:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that last one has such an amusing title I may just have to do it... --Chris Key 18:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

helping the Constabulary

Hi, Chris, I've just created a new header on the main Constabulary page under the How to section and created the following text for it:

Citizen Chris Key [1] contributed the following information:

Each of the sections of writing on the Request Account page is held in a different place. The introductory text is found at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Requestaccount-text

For the other sections, go to http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:AllMessages and in the box at the top labeled "Message name filter:" type in "requestaccount" (one word, lower-case, excluding the quotation marks). Do NOT click the box labeled "Show only modified". Ignore any writing with a red background (that is default text that has been changed), and find the bit you need to edit that has a green background. Then, click the link on the left of that text that begins with requestaccount- and edit the page.

Many thanks for all the invaluable help! Hayford Peirce 20:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hayford, no problem at all. Can't see where you've made the edit though, must be somewhere off of the live wiki. --Chris Key 20:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think only Kops can access the Kop page at (removed link - it should probably be private) Hayford Peirce 20:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh yeah, its a completely separate wiki. --Chris Key 20:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

World of Warcraft

Approved! Congratulations and thanks for your hard work. I do think it is something that we can all be proud of! D. Matt Innis 11:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for that. Had a little brain spasm I guess! D. Matt Innis 14:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, no problem. happens to the best of us! --Chris Key 14:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We need something like this pronto

Chris, the charter discussion page needs to be simple to add input to. something like this added to the template. Is it possible? D. Matt Innis 12:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible? Yes. Simple? No. It'll need to be a new template and transclude comments from subpages. Gimme an hour. --Chris Key 12:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I deliberately avoided this, since I find this system even more complicated than editing the table directly. But while you are over the template anyway, do you have any idea why art. 12, 36 and 51 appear in white rather than the green I had meant for them? The switch parameter is "Finished". --Daniel Mietchen 12:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You're awesome! D. Matt Innis 12:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is more complicated about clicking the edit button and typing in your comment compared to editing a complex table? The latter may perhaps be easier, but only for the computer literate.

The whitespace in the middle of the #ifeq was confusing the parser. Fixed the colour thing. --Chris Key 12:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Okay, what do you think of this: User:Chris Key/Sandbox/Sandbox. Note that I have only changed the one in the Preamble so far. --Chris Key 12:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. That's great for discussion for each vote, but I need a discussion area for the article number itself. Something below the spreadsheet that everyone can discuss in wiki style. Make sense? D. Matt Innis 13:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Better? http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Chris_Key/Sandbox/Sandbox#Preamble --Chris Key 13:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

YES!!!!!!!!!!! Can you get that to the Charter page.. Bwahahaha!!

Not yet. Now comes the long and tedious bit... I have to copy every vote and comment from the old template into the new system. --Chris Key 13:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please excuse the massive flood of edits in recent edits. If anyone would like to help, feel free to start from the bottom. --Chris Key 13:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, that's what I had to do last night with Daniel's template! I am at work and can only stop in with quick spurts, but I'll help if you aren't done, yet. D. Matt Innis 13:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Half hour later and I'm on article 16. I'll be at it a while! Any help appreciated, even if it's just a couple. Start from the bottom so we don't overlap. --Chris Key 14:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel for your help getting this finished! Anyway, just under two hours later, I'll now transfer this to the main page. --Chris Key 15:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) The new template is now finally in place. When you wish to add another round of voting, please follow these instructions. I'll let you inform the rest of the committee how to use it. --Chris Key 15:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! I hadn't even thought of the second vote! Thank you thank you thank you... now let's see if it works! D. Matt Innis 16:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

One problem occurs to me. Unless the user adds the discussion page for each article onto their watchlist they will not see updates in discussions on their watchlist. The quickest way to do this is shown at User:D. Matt Innis/CurrentDraft/RevisedStructure/Watchlist Setup --Chris Key 16:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! Also, is it possible to add a link back tot he charter page from here so that we don't have to search for it again? D. Matt Innis 16:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. As long as you create it via the link on the main page, this will be preloaded into any future discussion pages/vote pages created --Chris Key 17:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I try it out now!!D. Matt Innis 19:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You Rock, Chris! Thanks for this. It has really opened up the process. Russell D. Jones 00:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

CZ:AddThis Tracking Statistics

Do you intend to update this summary once in a while? The latest updtate was July 13th. Regards, Milton Beychok 02:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It takes quite a while to update, so I'll be doing it at the start of each month. --Chris Key 04:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please look at my last post in Technical Issue forum

Specifically, the thread "How to archive Talk pages". Thanks, Milton Beychok 20:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem

Perhaps, you can help me. I recently changed the default font in my latest Firefox browser version (3.6.8) from Times Roman to Arial and also specified the size as 16 (I don't know the units).

That looks just the way I want it to look in CZ except for one thing: The size of the font on the Edit pages is visibly larger than on the main article pages. Is there any way to make the font size on the edit pages the same size as on the main article pages? They were the same size before I changed to the Arial font. Milton Beychok 18:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In the options where you changed the font initially, there is an Advanced button. Click this, and change the settings for 'Monospace'. You may also need to deselect the box that says "Allow pages to choose their own fonts, instead of my selections above". Let me know it this doesn't work. --Chris Key 18:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,Chris, that worked. Milton Beychok 20:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Help help

Your start on help functions looks great. I don't see why you couldn't link current policy pages. Thanks for the work. Russell D. Jones 14:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It does link to current policies. For example, on the table help page ([User:Chris_Key/Sandbox/Help/Formatting/References|here]]) it says at the top in the green box "Further guidance can be found at the Citation style page.". Similarly the page for constables on how to block someone (here) says "Further guidance can be found at the Constabulary Blocking Procedures page."

The idea is that when someone wants to know the answer to a specific issue they can find it quickly and easily. When they want to know more details, they are pointed to the policy pages. The problem with the policy pages is that they are huge, long and rambling, so it is hard to find a specific answer to a specific question. By using the help system you can click a few buttons to narrow the search, and be provided with the short version of the answer, with a link to the relevant policy. --Chris Key 14:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

A good example of why policy pages are hard to digest. CZ:Approval_process tells you exactly what the approval process is, then it goes on to say who can do it, then it goes on to say how the Editor should do it, then theres a bit for Constables about how to do their bit, then theres a bit on making copyedits on approved articles, then revoking approval, then reapproval. Most of that page is irrelevant to authors. At least a third of it is irrelevant to Editors. At least a third of it is irrelevant to Constables. With the help system, at the top the Citizen says if they are an author, Editor or Constable. They then click for information on the approval process. They then choose what part of the approval process they want information about. They are then told a short answer that gives only the information relevant to their role and their question. They are also linked to the full policy in case they have further queries. --Chris Key 14:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris, I am sure you are aware of CZ:Home ... but if not, It is the best overall collection of our current learning sources. Milton Beychok 20:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I sure wish that CZ:Home were on the left pane of the page, up at the top, instead of a lot of the other baloney! Every time I try to find it I can't. Right now I'm looking all over the place for "Be bold" citations and "own an article" citations and they're impossible to track down. Although in the CZ:Home I just found some stuff about authors not owning articles. I sure hope that whoever's running things six months from now will have cleared up a lot of -- if, of course, anyone is left here.... Hayford Peirce 20:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Milt. Yes, I am aware of it and it is a valuable resource. However, it lists so many different topics that it is difficult to find exactly what you need. By breaking it down into steps to find what you need, it will make life easier for everyone. Also, as I said above, the pages linked to from there are very long and it can sometimes be difficult to find a simple answer. --Chris Key 20:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hayford, it is linked to as 'General Help' under 'Dive in!'. For be bold, try CZ:Be Bold. For owning an article, try CZ:How_to_collaborate and CZ:Group_Editing. My memory is so odd... I can find stuff like that in an instant, but I'd forget my own address just as quickly. --Chris Key 20:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at all that. I've *trying* all day to add a little Richard Condon and Mile High stuff, plus start a new one called The Vertical Smile (not a British rock group), but all of this other stuff has been distracting me. Maybe now.... Hayford Peirce 21:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean. I've been trying to work on the new help system, and some Dizzy and Bubble Bobble stuff, but have been distracted also. --Chris Key 21:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I've gotten a bit done on Stryker systems but haven't had the satisfaction of blowing things up. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Why delete Nick Bagnell or whoever

Where was his page moved to? Hayford Peirce 01:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I put up Super Mario Bros./Definition for speedydelete but forgot the noinclude tags... therefore it transcluded onto Nick's page. Sorry! --Chris Key 04:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Gambling in Rick's Cafe!

I am shocked, absolutely shocked, to find a sentence ending in a preposition. Of course, W. Churchill did say of that rule, "This is arrant nonsense up with which I shall not put!' --Howard C. Berkowitz 03:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Churchill and the English language? I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship! Russell D. Jones 12:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Help:Links

Chris, I've restored the content of CZ:Links for various reasons including a need for discussion. That page deals with internal links and link syntax and the content was deleted in favor of a page dealing with external link subpages, which is both a different topic (one dealing with subpages and not specifically wiki syntax) and a subset of link syntax (for instance, how to write an internal link is not discussed on the external-link-subpages page). The help certainly needs help and thanks again for you willingness to take up the task. Russell D. Jones 12:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(Cross-posted to CZ_talk: Links) Actually, I deleted it by mistake. I meant to copy the content elsewhere, and must have pasted it back into the wrong box. Sorry! To clarify, I have no intention of changing any help or policy pages within the CZ namespace. The Help system I am developing is a separate, less formal and less official project that would run along side it. --Chris Key 11:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

np; As you've just found out it sometimes takes me a while to move around, so I didn't see your reply there until just seconds ago. And I do truly like the new help system you're developing. Russell D. Jones 12:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

But, however...

Thanks for your note - answer on my page. Ro Thorpe 22:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You are too funny nice hearing from ya!

NM Mary Ash 19:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I just want to clear up a misunderstanding

Chris, in the "Additions to the Constabulary page by Matt" forum thread, when I said "stop already", I was speaking about the bickering going on about the UFO article. I was not trying to prematurely close down the discussion of Matt's additions to the Constabulary page. I hope this clears that point up. Milton Beychok 19:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Inactive Editors

Hi Chris, I think the changes should include the transition from Category:CZ Editors to Category:Inactive CZ Editors. At least that's how the bot used to do it. --Daniel Mietchen 23:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, hadn't noticed that one. I'll go back and change them later.

Incidentally, I've changed some Editors who haven't made a contribution since 2007. I don't think that the bot is 100% accurate. --Chris Key 05:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you notice such cases, please take a note. My guess would be that they were not listed in Category:CZ Editors, on which the bot operates. --Daniel Mietchen 08:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Draft of CZ: help article on formatting references is available for your comments. Please, just Chris for now.

Hi, Chris:

A draft of my CZ: help article about formatting references is ready for review at User:Milton Beychok/Sandbox. Its about 95% done now and I would appreciate your comments if any before I finish it . Once I have finished it and you load it into your new help structure, I am sure others will have comments as well. But for now, I would like to keep it between you and I until I hand it over to you. You can leave your comments on the sandbox's Talk page. Milton Beychok 05:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris, my finished (I hope!) article about formatting references has now been loaded into the CZ: namespace and is now available at CZ:Formatting of embedded, inline references for use by you in your new help structure.Milton Beychok 05:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Milt, that's a *tremendous* amount of work and expertise! Thanks for trying to make sense of all of this! Hayford Peirce 03:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Milt, that is great work and I've already learnt a thing or two. From Help:Index you can now access it by clicking 'Formatting help' and then 'Reference help'. Alternatively, the direct link is Help:Index/Formatting/References. --Chris Key 07:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris, the original CZ:Formatting of embedded, inline references is still out there. That means any edits made to either it or Help:Index/Formatting/References must be made to the other, which is a heck of a monitoring chore. I think that I will redirect the original CZ:Formatting of embedded, inline references to the new Help:Index/Formatting/References. In that way, at least the History of the original article should be retained, should it not? What do you think? Is there a better way? Milton Beychok 08:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably the best option is to delete Help:Index/Formatting/References and then move CZ:Formatting of embedded, inline references to the new location. That would properly retain the history. Only reason I didn't do the move originally is because the template of Help:Index/Formatting/References was already in place. --Chris Key 08:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think that's best, then go for it! Milton Beychok 08:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have marked the help page for speedydelete. Once a Constable has done it, I shall move your page to the correct location. --Chris Key 08:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The deletion has happened and I have moved the page to its new location. --Chris Key 18:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo

Here's what I posted to my talk page. Lighten up fellas. The name I submitted sure looked like a REAL name to me and let it go at that. It is a lovely photo that I used on my wikiHow account and decided to move over here. The photo came from Flickr and I liked it. Do YOU make time to share anything positive here, or are are you all sitting around waiting to "pounce" on the newbies? I did add the hyperlink showing where the image was found so anyone could search it out. Finally, I did some research and indeed this is a dying wiki. I wonder why... My personal comment here: I'm doing the best I can here and I thought I did include enough upload info. I'm sorry. Mary Ash 16:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris I truly understand copyright stuff and I try to uphold the "law" when it comes to these things. I thought I did an adequate job giving attribution to the photographer. I went so far as to copy-and-paste the name he used at Flickr. To me that's good enough attribution as that's what he chose to be known by. I also included the hpyerlink to the page for anyone to research. I also included the licensing info in the license box. I do believe I did an adequate job establish who the photographer was, used the name he wanted, and provided the appropriate licensing info.Mary Ash 17:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome message! I really appreciate it, and I look forward to much collaborative editing, and adding to the friendly atmosphere this place seems to have! Rachael Cantrell 13:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Left this message on the Mack talk page

Hubby dearest has asked that I not contribute here after reading the comments left by some of the CZ contributors. He read the talk page comments and could not believe the comments made and lack of support offered by some of the key CZ contributors here.

My physical health is not the best and my trip through CZ has now lead me to call the doctor today. I'm sure my doctor will want to run a CBC and liver panel to evaluate my health.

Chris, Matt, Ro and Aleta thank you for being very encouraging and positive. CZ could use a few more people like you. I forgot to add the biggest reason I stayed as long as I did was because Matt was so kind to me. You are the shining examples of what wiki contributors should be. A good wiki creates a supportive environment and helps each other look good. For example: one wiki contributor may be good at editing and adding wiki mark up while another is good at writing. In a good wiki they would collaborate and help each other make their wiki the best it could be.

I am sorry it didn't work out. If my health improves I may return. Mary Ash 16:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Chris, just finished a help article on how to archive user talk page

Please look at User:Milton Beychok/Sandbox where I have just finished a help page on how to archive subpages. I plan to upload it as CZ:Archiving user talk pages and you can then fit it into your new Help structure. I know that CZ:Talk Pages has a section devoted to the same subject ... but my stand-alone article is much more detailed and covers more aspects of the subject. I tried to write it so that newcomers could follow it step-by-step.

I would appreciate any comments or revisions you may want before I upload it. Thanks. Milton Beychok 06:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Milt, that looks great. I cannot think of any improvements.

It may be easier to move the page straight into the help system then going via a CZ page. If you could move it to Help:Index/Communication/Talk/Archiving that will put it straight in place. Also please add {{Help page|Talk Pages}} to the top of the page, and {{Back to help}} at the end of the page. Thanks for your help! --Chris Key 10:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo Attribution

This morning, after feeling so much better, I realized why I was doing this. Any work done for hire and any work paid for by the US Government, or by an employee of the US Government, is considered work for hire or public domain. See: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf Attribution automatically goes to the agency that paid for the work and since we all paid for the federal government photo it's considered public domain. That means the Mack article and the Osprey article were correctly attributed by me. It would be best to change the current attributions to the Harvard Press Office and US Government for those photos as they are now incorrect. It is nice to credit the photographer, if known, but the correct and presumably legal attribution goes to the agencies involved. I fulfilled my ethical and professional responsibility by notifying Citizendium of their error. Mary Ash 15:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Mary, if you will look closely at the photo of Mack that you uploaded, the photo itself has attribution to Harvard Press at the bottom (in very small print). As for the the V-22 Osprey photo you uploaded, the current credit line (which I added as required by CZ) has both the U.S. Navy (which is the government agency) and their photographer's name (who took the photo). So all is well. Thanks for your comment and concern. Milton Beychok 17:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." (ref: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105).

Therefore photos taken by non-government photographers but then given to the government ARE in fact copyrighted and are not public domain. Also, it is very possible that the copyright would be retained by the original photographer but the image licenced for use by the government. Therefore, unless we know for a FACT the exact copyright status of the image, it is best to attribute both the government agency and the photographer. --Chris Key 18:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Also...

106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity

(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art —

(1) shall have the right —

(A) to claim authorship of that work [...]

(e) Transfer and Waiver. — (1) The rights conferred by subsection (a) may not be transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such instrument shall specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to which the waiver applies, and the waiver shall apply only to the work and uses so identified.

Therefore even if the original author of the work did give the copyright to the government, they still have a legal right to be attributed to the image. Even if they sign a waiver the waiver only applies to certain usages, and therefore would not apply to our usage on CZ. --Chris Key 18:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And I agree. The file history should reflect ownership is the US Government with credit given to the photographer. As written now the photographer is cited as the owner of the photo not the US Government which is incorrect. Mary Ash 18:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Image%3AOsprey.png&diff=100693841&oldid=100693698

Wrong. The photographer is cited as the AUTHOR of the photo, which is correct. The creditline (here) states that the copyright is held by both the photographer and the United States Navy. Unless we have proof that the copyright has been fully transferred, we must assume this is correct. --Chris Key 18:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Or here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Image%3AMack_harvardpressoffice.jpg&diff=100697324&oldid=100697131 ...said Mary Ash (talk) (Please sign your talk page posts by simply adding four tildes, ~~~~.)

Also I have changed it from 'public domain' to 'copyrighted'. Unless we have proof that the photo has been released to the public domain we must assume that it has not. --Chris Key 18:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

{unindent} If you read the PDF copyright file I sent it says any work done for the federal government is considered public domain. The author/photographer was taking photos for the US government therefore is considered a federal employee making the photo public domain attributed to the US government. The way I attributed it originally is correct. Mary Ash 18:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)