User talk:David Finn: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 08:45, 15 April 2012

Re re-approval of Boiling point/Draft

David, will you please review Milton's responses to your comments on th Talk page regarding Boiling point/Draft, and note on the Talk page whether you consider them satisfactory, and if not, why not.

Also, would you give your assessment of the article as to its meriting re-approval.

Thank you. —Anthony.Sebastian 03:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC), Approval Manager.

I see the approval process overtook my timeframe for answering these questions. Well done Anthony, in just a few weeks you managed our first article approval in a very long time! Ok, only a re-approval, but it's a good start. For the record I think the small addition to the introduction of the draft article made a big difference to the amount of people who would try to use that article. My concerns were the same as yours - of course we shouldn't eliminate the scientific information, that would be ridiculous, but we should certainly try where possible to introduce all readers to a topic in a way they can understand, with increasing complexity as the reader progresses. That is, of course, why we have subpages and the like. Keep up the good work! David Finn 07:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Welcome! Feel free to ask any questions. I will answer them ''where I find them'', so I will reply here if you type here - if you are replying to something I wrote on your talkpage or an article talkpage, just reply there as I watchlist everything and it is much easier to hold one conversation in one place! And if your question is about unsourced additions I have made - well, I don't make unsourced edits. If an edit I make has no obvious source it is just that I haven't added the source yet - all my edits are based on verifiable sources which I can produce on request. Happy editing! [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 06:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
+== Re re-approval of [[Boiling point/Draft]] ==
-==Welcome!==
+David, will you please review Milton's responses to your comments on th Talk page regarding [[Boiling point/Draft]], and note on the Talk page whether you consider them satisfactory, and if not, why not.
-{|width=80% align=center border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="border-bottom:1px solid #999999; border-top:1px solid #dddddd; border-left:1px solid #aaaaaa; border-right:1px solid #dddddd; margin:0 auto; clear: both;" class="collapsible {{{hide}}}"
+Also, would you give your assessment of the article as to its meriting re-approval.
-!align=center colspan=3 style="background:#AAE28E"| ''Citizendium'' [[CZ:Getting Started|Getting Started]]
-|-
-|style="background:#f5f5f5" align=center colspan=3|[[Special:RequestAccount|Register]] &#124; [[CZ:Quick Start|Quick Start]] &#124; [[CZ:About|About us]] &#124; [[CZ:FAQ|FAQ]] &#124; [[CZ:The Author Role|The Author Role]] &#124; [[CZ:The Editor Role|The Editor Role]]<br>[[CZ:Dozen Essentials|A dozen essentials]] &#124; [[CZ:How to start a new article|How to start a new article]] &#124; [[CZ:Introduction to CZ for Wikipedians|For Wikipedians]]     &#124; [[:Category:Getting Started|Other]]
-|-
-|width=10% align=center style="background:#f5f5f5"|<small>[[CZ:Home|Home]]</small>
-|style="background:#F5F5F5"|
-{|border="0" align=center cellpadding=3px style="background:#F5F5F5; cell-spacing:2px;"
-|align="center" NOWRAP|<small>[[CZ:Getting Started|Getting Started]]</small>
-|align="center" NOWRAP|<small>[[CZ:Organization|Organization]]</small>
-|align="center" NOWRAP|<small>[[CZ:Technical Help|Technical Help]]</small>
-|align="center" NOWRAP|<small>[[CZ:Content Policy|Content Policy]]</small>
-|align="center" NOWRAP|<small>[[CZ:Article Lists|Article Lists]]</small>
-|-
-|align="center" NOWRAP|<small>[[CZ:Initiatives|Initiatives]]</small>
-|align="center" NOWRAP|<small>[[CZ:Communication|Communication]]</small>
-|align="center" NOWRAP|<small>[[CZ:Editor Policy|Editor Policy]]</small>
-|align="center" NOWRAP|<small>[[CZ:Editorial Council|Editorial Council]]</small>
-|align="center" NOWRAP|<small>[[CZ:Constabulary|Constabulary]]</small>
-|}
-|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"|<small>[[Welcome Page]]</small>
-|}
-'''Welcome to the ''Citizendium!'''''  We hope you will contribute [[CZ:Be Bold|boldly]] and well.  Here are pointers for a [[CZ:Quick Start|quick start]].  You'll probably want to know [[CZ:The Author Role|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 [https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list] (do join!) and [http://blog.citizendium.org the blog].  Please also join the [[CZ:Mailing lists|workgroup mailing list(s)]] that concern your particular interests.  You can test out [[CZ:How to edit an article|editing]] in the [[CZ:Sandbox|sandbox]] if you'd like.  If you need help to get going, the [http://forum.citizendium.org/ forums] is one option.  That's also where we discuss policy and proposals.  You can ask any [[:Category:CZ Constables|constable]] for help, too.  Me, for instance!  Just put a note on their "talk" page.  Again, welcome and have fun! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
-== Reason for Picatinny renaming ==
+Thank you. &mdash;[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 03:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC), Approval Manager.
-Pain pills, I think. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 22:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
+:I see the approval process overtook my timeframe for answering these questions. Well done Anthony, in just a few weeks you managed our first article approval in a very long time! Ok, only a re-approval, but it's a good start. For the record I think the small addition to the introduction of the draft article made a big difference to the amount of people who would try to use that article. My concerns were the same as yours - of course we shouldn't eliminate the scientific information, that would be ridiculous, but we should certainly try where possible to introduce all readers to a topic in a way they can understand, with increasing complexity as the reader progresses. That is, of course, why we have subpages and the like. Keep up the good work! [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 07:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
-:Ha! Oops, mustn't laugh at the pain of others. You do a phenomenal amount of article creation I have noticed, well done. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 22:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
-==Class names==
-I wasn't sure if you would follow the discussion on my user page; we should decide where to discuss which, I'm pleased to say, is a [[CZ: Military Workgroup]] matter. Briefly, I have used the hyphen format for ship class names, fairly comfortable that there is no standard, but finding that it's useful to have a clear visual distinction between class and lead ship so it's always unambiguous if we are speaking of [[Yamato-class]] or ''[[IJN Yamato]]''.  (Note: there is a redirect, with a separate short definition, of ''IJN Yamato'' to Yamato-class. There's no reason except resources not to have an article on each ship of the class, but redirects with definition are an interim solution.
-As you'll see from [[Destroyer/Related Articles]], this applies to many more classes than battleships.  There are a tremendous number of class references in many articles, and I've tried to be consistent about the hyphen style. I'm willing to recommend it, as the only active Military Editor, as a CZ style subject to workgroup discussion.
-Naming has been a continuing problem, not just for ships. There have been arguments raised "but this is most common in Google", by nonspecialist Citizens, about a variety of naming categories. For example, I created the [[Hezbollah]] article believing that transliteration, while not unique, is most common in professional literature. Hezb'Allah, Hezballah, Hizballah, and others are also plausible transliterations, and for which I certainly would have no argument against having redirects to the arbitrary article name. Correctly, in English, the organization is the Party of God, or at most, the Party of Allah. The others become authoritative only if we write and index in Arabic. Nevertheless, names have been a hot argument and often the only ones associated with Military articles.
-I would be delighted both to have a Military style guide, and more Military participants both as Authors and Editors. David, I have quite a few articles that may be close to Approval-ready, but can't advance unless there are either three editors (in some cases History or Politics) or there's a non-author Military Editor.
-Shall we move this to discussion under [[CZ: Military Workgroup]]? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 11:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
-:I am happy with your reasoning and your solution. Without a clear reason to do otherwise it seems best to just go with how things have been done, especially since there seems to be common use of both terms. Standardizing the process via the workgroup would be good, it would prevent any argument arising in the future should another contributor start changing things.
-:My Military contribution is likely to revolve around ships and vehicles, aircraft and equipment - technical matters, rather than anything controversial like politics, but I can afford to spend some time working on whatever else is necessary, and I am happy to continue discussion wherever it is most appropriate. Thanks for the reply. [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 14:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
-::Great. Not too long ago, we were able to Approve several articles after I also received Editor status in History and Politics. Roger Lohmann and Russsell Jones and I did a number of three-editor approvals, more in the political area. I would be delighted to have more involvement in the technical area. The [[cruiser]] and [[destroyer]] articles, for example, are in decent shape, as are a number of specific battles.
-::There's a substantial amount about current technologies, which sound as if they are a bit outside your area of interest. Would you have any ideas about potential Editors for Military?
-::Stray question: As I've been revising various things about the Pacific Theater in WWII, I see a need for some articles hierarchically below the theater.  Naming is a challenge and I really don't have strong preferences.  Would you prefer:
-::*Philippines campaign (1941-1942), WWII resistance movements in the Philippines, and Phillipines campaign (1944-1945)
-::*Japanese occupation of the Philippines, WWII resistance movements in the Philippines, and U.S. Philippines counteroffensive
-::or something else? It's also an interesting question if the WWII resistance movement article should include postwar as well as wartime [[Hukbalahap]] activities.
-::Do let me know about more of your interests. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 15:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:David Finn: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 08:45, 15 April 2012

Re re-approval of Boiling point/Draft

Navigation menu

Search