User talk:Pat Palmer

Pat Palmer

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6

Mount Evans to Mount blue sky

Pat, thanks for redirecting that page about the mountain in Colorado. Jack S. Byrom (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2023 (CDT)

Glad to do it. It's great to see you drop by and edit a bit in here. Pat Palmer (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2023 (CDT)

Test Comment

Hi Pat! Just testing out leaving comments on discussion pages. E. J. Diamond (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2023 (CDT)

Commenting on your test comment. Pat Palmer (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2023 (CDT)

App

While looking for something else, I serendipitously came across tipitaka.app. I think we should mention this, but I don't know much about this modern technology, in particular how to reference this. Peter Jackson (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2023 (CST)

This looks interesting. I have loaded it on my Android smartphone and on Windows and will try it out. The smartphone version seems to be in the process of downloading a large dictionary of terms in the background, so it may be a while before it works. The Windows version is tricky to install and also doesn't work yet, possibly for the same reason. I will try again later! Pat Palmer (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2023 (CST)

Sadly, I never was able to get it to work. It's a great idea though. I'd love to be able to line up my favorite English translations of the canon and do a text search over the whole thing. Too bad. Pat Palmer (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2024 (CST)

Articles with subpages that require metadata...

I got your recent email, thanks. George Swan (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2023 (CST)

Hi George (and anyone). I am moving the list of pages needing Metadata to CZ:Pages without metadata. Please add your newly created articles to that list. I am trying to hire a programmer to get metadata creation automated when creating new articles. We had that for many years in the past, but it was never rewritten after an old wiki upgrade broke it. Pat Palmer (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2024 (CST)

Doggie test pages

Hi Pat. I found Doggie/Definition, Doggie/External Links, Doggie/Related Articles, and Doggie1/Definition which are test pages you were using. You have already deleted the main Doggie article. Do you want to keep these four or delete them too? Btw, how much is the one in the window? John (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2024 (CST)

Lol. Please delete them. I might need some test articles again in the future, and will let you know if I am using them. Pat Palmer (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2024 (CST)

Lemma clusters

Hi, Pat. I think I've made some progress with these by focusing on Category:Lemma Subpage. I decided to action all articles with subpages other than Related Articles so we now have 599 in that category and the same 599 in Category:Lemma Related Articles Subpage. As this has identified several oddballs and duplicates, I think we now have a level playing field. However, there are still 15,000 articles in Category:Lemma Cluster overall and the overwhelming majority are about the sort of obscure subjects we've already discussed.

I think I will take a break from housekeeping now and go back to normal writing as I might burn out if I try to keep going. Perhaps the best approach now will be to pick out anything that obviously needs a metadata, such as Bayeux Tapestry or Central America, and deal with those. As for Howard's stuff, there are numerous groups of articles with serial numbers which are easily seen, such as ADM or AH or AMD, so they could be batched together for deletion. I'll do an occasional purge but I do think, despite 15,000 being no small number, that we've got things under control now. John (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2024 (CST)

Redirects

Hi, Pat. I just thought I'd let you know that I'm going to start hitting redirects as I've been coming across lots of them which are unnecessary or are leftovers from page movement. Some still have metadatas and/or subpages which are just so much extra clutter. I've done a search and there are over 15,700 redirect pages including hundreds of double redirects. I'm not going to waste time adding reasons for deletion because of the timeout bug so I'll build a list for the day and go through them as quickly as I can. When I see any I think are at least useful, if not essential, I'll leave them be. They can easily be restored or recreated if I hit any that are needed.

I've also finished working through letter A of Category:Lemma Subpage and many now have metadatas. The 22 which remain are in PropDel as I don't think they will be expanded. We currently have 46 under B and I'll start looking at those soon. These of course are the lemmas which have a related articles page so there's "only" 560-odd of them. John (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2024 (CST)

I agree that, while we definitely need some Redirects, the wiki has too many now, and too many double redirects, and that they are clutter which we would do well to reduce. I look forwards to your efforts (I'm slowly working on them also). Pat Palmer (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2024 (CST)

P S - But, please be sure to check What Links Here, and if things link to the Redirect, use the Replace Text tool (or possibly manual edits) to fix the redlinks that would be left by deleting a Redirect. It can be a bit of tedious work, which is why this work is slow and tedious. Pat Palmer (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2024 (CST)

I've been going through the Broken Redirects first, Pat. They were easily dealt with because there's a delete trigger for each one. We can't delete CZ pages for some reason. They produce an internal error.

I also want to work through Double Redirects which is a mess. There are 445 of those and I'll have to hold my hand up there because I can see several that are mine. I think that might be it for today, though, but I should be back tomorrow. It's snowing and settling here. First snow we've had this winter. John (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2024 (CST)

email

You asked me to send some kinds of messages to you via email.

Did you see I sent you an email on Saturday? George Swan (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2024 (CST)

George, I did not receive it at either the CZ email or my personal email. Can you try again? Pat Palmer (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2024 (CST)

End of tether

Hi, Pat. Please see recent talk page entries and recent corrections I have had to spend time doing. I think I've had enough for now and will take a break but, frankly, I'm calling Houston. John (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2024 (CST)

Seen your message elsewhere, Pat. As it happens, I'll be very busy in home life for the next several days so I'll be stepping aside from the internet. All the best. John (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2024 (CST)

Living persons

Hi, Pat. I've not a lot of time for the next three days because family are visiting but we've just been chatting about CZ and one of my daughters has made a useful suggestion.

She is puzzled by the Topic Informant classification and thinks we should simplify how we categorise living person biographies (BLP) by having a Biographies category with a Living Persons sub-category. On the face of it, this seems a good idea to me. I think we'd have to augment it by insisting that all BLPs must have a metadata completed and that no BLP can be a lemma. Also, of course, anyone creating a BLP must be able to demonstrate the subject's significance. For example, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are significant, but is Jeff Zients (whose name I plucked out of a list)? I would add that everything we write in a BLP article must be verified by citation of a reliable source, especially if the person is controversial in some way.

Just one for us to think about as it might be a way towards better control of BLP creation and content. John (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2024 (CST)

I had never heard of Jeff Zients, either. 15 seconds with google taught me he is Joe Biden's Chief of Staff. That is a very important position.

His wikipedia article has 48 references. and has been edited over 750 times.

His wikipedia article has been read something like 316,000 times. George Swan (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2024 (CST)

Wikipedia:Jeff_Zients is important for the moment, yes, but Wikipedia already has an extensive article about him, and it's actually not bad, so I'm reluctant to leave the one we have unless someone is going to invest the time to make it better than WP's. Thus, his name and function might well appear in our Joe Biden article, but instead of linking to a CZ stub article on Zients, we can just add a Footnote/Reference pointing to WP, or one is actually able to link directly to Wikipedia like this: [[Wikipedia:Jeff_Zients]]. That would be my preference in cases of minor figures like this. Oddly, WP's Notability policy gets anyone mentioned in the press a lot an article, but makes it damned difficult to add articles about people who, in life, are probably important to many people but are being ignored by the press, such as (just for example) Paul Prestopino, a man who played on tracks from dozens of leading rock musicians in the 60's through 80's and was well-known across the music industry. After he passed away, it took me six months to get the article about him approved in Wikipedia (because Paul never sought the limelight), even though 70 articles in Wikipedia were already pointing off to a non-existent article about him. Pat Palmer (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2024 (CST)

BTW I agree that Topic Informants is not a helpful Workgroup at this point, but we need some method of grouping together all the articles about living people, and reengineering Topic Informants is beyond my capacity at the moment. The code implementing Workgroups is tough to deal with. I like the idea of a Living Persons Biography category, but if we're going to create that, we need to decide what the criterion is for it. I think it's important not to keep adding mid-level professionals to the wiki, confining ourselves to people with tangible accomplishments: books, recordings, films, other works of art, writing plays that have had a long successful run (not necessarily beginners who have won a single award but whose work has not withstood the test of time), holding high office (senator, congressperson, member of parliament, head of state, cabinet member, etc.). This is an incomplete list; being the top general in a war, state or federal judge, etc. should also count. Being White House chief of staff is a very powerful position in that this person can to some extent gate who has personal access to the president, but the position is temporary, and that person is, at least in theory, not really the one "driving the bus", so to speak. After his/her president leaves office, that person becomes (once again) just another party loyalist available for hire by others, unless they decide to run for office on their own (as did, for example, Rahm Emanuel who became mayor of Chicago, which probably does warrant having a bio in here. Pat Palmer (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2024 (CST)

I think I'm going to copy this thread into the Content forum, where we can continue discussing the matter, resulting in some eventual revision of CZ:Content_Policy as well as, possibly, other documentation etc. Let's move the discussion there. Pat Palmer (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2024 (CST)

Vietnam

Hi, Pat. I see you're working on this and it looks to me like a very good article in the making. One thing I'd ask is how much anti-war protest should be included? Or perhaps we could have a separate article to cover protest. Country Joe and all that. I once took part in a demo in London, marching on the US Embassy in Grosvenor Square and chanting "Ho! Ho! Ho Chi Minh!" Looking back, I cannot believe I ever did such things. I especially remember "The Greatest", Muhammad Ali, denouncing that war by defying the draft and saying he had "nothing against them VietCong" because they never called him N-word.

In Britain, people of my age are virtually unanimous in our gratitude to Harold Wilson, who refused to involve us despite LJB begging him to send British forces. If only Blair had done the same on Iraq, although he was right about Afghanistan.

It's very late here. I should be able to help out more after tomorrow afternoon. Great to see the family, though. Good night. John (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2024 (CST)

Anti-war protest around the Vietnam War would probably make a good second article (though I don't have the interest in writing it), and I was tempted to bring up the Kent state killings (4 students shot by the Ohio Nat'l Guard) and the vilification of Jane Fonda, but I didn't want to make that section too long. I included the section of American culture because younger people these days have no idea how formative the Vietnam War was on our outlook on life. The only march I ever attended was a Women's March on Washington once in the 1980's about the time the Equal Rights Amendment for women failed to pass. It did no good. I'm just not a marcher or someone to throw myself before a bulldozer. Good on you for having marched at least once! Pat Palmer (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2024 (CST)

Articles needing action

Hi, Pat. At various times in the last few days, you requested action on these articles but nothing has been done:

• Tomlin's Creek
• Charlotte Wise
• David Brant
• Alberto Mora
• Michael Lohr
• Michael Gelles
• Peter Murphy
• Slawko Klymkiw
• Horseshoe Moraine
• Paris-Galt Moraine
• Fraser River
• Caroline Kepnes
• Aimee Bessada
• Lewis Burwell
• Insula dell'Ara Coeli

Would you like me to deal with them? I think you wanted Klymkiw to be a speedy, but please confirm. The others are all renames.

I'm going to start removing the 38 January PropDels. I think they are all lemmas so it shouldn't take too long but I'll probably do them in batches. John (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2024 (CST)

Let's just put Slawko Klymkiw on the PropDel list; it isn't actually harmful material, and it will give the author a chance to move the information to another more appropriate place if he would like to. Feel free to work on any of the others that you have time for. I added a couple things to speedydelete today. Thank you for working on the January deletions! Pat Palmer (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2024 (CST)

People

Hi, Pat. Would you be okay with a People Workgroup and, affiliated to it and perhaps other WGs, a Living Persons Subgroup and a Historical Persons Subgroup (I'm not sure about the name for the latter)? We currently have one WG, Robotics, which is empty so I could move that to People. I'll leave you to think about it. All the best. John (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2024 (CST)

Templates

Hi, Pat. Do we have any kind of "article reviewed" or "article passes muster" template that we could use at the top of pages that have been reviewed or revised and can be classified as satisfactory or better? The reason I'm asking is that I took the bull by the horns earlier today and reviewed Islam. I had seen there were several HB edits in its history and I expected he would have turned it into the usual soapbox. However, I was pleasantly surprised because it is within scope and is quite good. His input amounted to minor edits only, like adding links.

I've started my own list of satisfactory articles now and I think it would be useful if there is something in the article itself to say it is okay after being reviewed. If we don't have a suitable template, could you suggest a wording? Thanks. John (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2024 (CST)

@John, What would you think about using a Category, as shown in the following list? If it doesn't fit one of those, it would be either {{PropDel}} or {{speedydelete}}. Maybe also, you should make me actually do any the speedy-deletes so you can always claim that I knew about it.Pat Palmer (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2024 (CST)

Here are the new Categories I am starting to use. Could you use them too, for now? Pat Palmer (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2024 (CST)

• Category:Flagged for Review
• Category:Reviewed Passed if Improved
• Category:Reviewed Passed
• Category:Living Person

Stray articles

Hi, Pat. How much of a problem are articles like Stanley Cup which have no subpages, no useful categories, and are outside lemma catchment? I found this by chance because it happens to contain a link to Kandahar. If there are loads of these strays floating around, I think it will be difficult tracing them and rounding them up.

Stanley Cup is definitely a copy of the WP version in 2008, btw. John (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2024 (CST)

One possibility is add the article to the list at CZ:Pages_without_metadata (which I did in the case of Stanley Cup just now. A better option might be to bring over the current WP article and, if needed, write a better intro for it and add the Provenance section to the bottom of the article with the {{WPAttribution}} template. These are for when there are links to the article. If unlinked, we might just delete it instead. Pat Palmer (talk) 13:15, 29 February 2024 (CST)

Double redirects

Hi, Pat. There are two of these relating to your own pages:

• User:Pat Palmer/sandbox/Proposed Impartiality Policy (edit) →‎ User:Pat Palmer/sandbox/Impartiality Guidance →‎ User:Pat Palmer/sandbox/Objectivity Guidance
• User:Pat Palmer/sandbox/Impartiality Guidance (edit) →‎ User:Pat Palmer/sandbox/Objectivity Guidance →‎ CZ:Objectivity Guidance

Do you need them for anything or can they be deleted? John (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2024 (CST)

These are old and can just be deleted, since CZ:Objectivity Guidance is linked on the main page. Thanks for noticing them. Actually, I'll take care of it. Pat Palmer (talk) 13:17, 29 February 2024 (CST)

I thought I deleted them both, but if one is still there, it can be deleted. Thanks! Pat Palmer (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2024 (CST)

All DDs have been cleared now, Pat. Not an easy job with quadruple/quintuple redirects and even 360 degree loops! Anyway, we just need to keep an eye on them now, and the same for broken redirects. John (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2024 (CST)

BC/AD or BCE/CE

Hi, Pat. Where do you stand on this? I'm asking because I've got 1 CE in my review list. Are you happy with that or would you prefer 1 AD? I'm happy with either, although I tend to say BC/AD because that's what I grew up with. John (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2024 (CST)

It's a strange article title, but let's leave it for now and deal with the more egregious stuff. It probably needs renaming but I'm not sure to what. Pat Palmer (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2024 (CDT)

Cordell Hull

Hi, Pat. If you should ever need to feel justification for our cleanup operation, see Cordell Hull. John (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2024 (CDT)

Ugh. Flagged for deletion, and I unlinked it. Pat Palmer (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2024 (CDT)

Best thing to do, I reckon. I'll add it to my to-do list and recreate it someday. I've had an interest in Cordell Hull ever since I saw George Macready playing him in Tora! Tora! Tora! — an example of how a good acting performance can raise the profile of a real person. John (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2024 (CDT)

In that case, unflag it for deletion and mark it! I'll look forwards to seeing it.Pat Palmer (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2024 (CDT)

Excess baggage

Hi, Pat. So you know, I'm starting a new approach to dealing with the thousands of articles already in PD or needing to be in PD. I got the idea from the Ho Chi Minh Trail as a complex but integrated network of paths. Working through the PD articles, I've found that the same ones constantly recur in both page links and related articles. So, I'm copying all link and RA titles and adding them to a list in one of my workshops as I believe this will eventually provide a near-comprehensive collection of articles we need to review and, for the most part, send to PD. To help with the process, I've opened some new pages in the PD category which currently list the main subpages of the March articles (RA/Def/Meta).

The method is to check all RA pages and list the contents in the workshop for later investigation, and then delete each RA. Then, same with the article links and delete those. Definitions are not really useful in this but they are nearly always present so I'll delete those with the articles. Finally, the metadata pages which need to be last because, as you know, an article with subpages and no meta is virtually unreadable. Other subpages like approvals and whatnot have already been deleted en masse as there are very few of them, even among the March collection.

The advantages are that the 1,300 March PD items will be deleted very quickly and we will be left with all their links and RAs. As more and more PDs disappear, the links and RAs will become increasingly red, and most of the remaining blue ones should be articles in the review process. The one slight disadvantage is that the process will resemble a production line and some articles that shouldn't be in PD might not escape. However, I think potential losses will be minor and, of course, providing the title isn't forgotten, an article can easily be restored.

Among the checks to be done on each PD are its history page which will speak volumes about whether to delete, whether to revert to an earlier version, whether to review, or whether to leave alone. The biggest problem is with articles that we need but which are currently unacceptable, because time must then be used to address the issues, even by rewriting.

I think this is the best approach to dealing with the volume. It is certain, I think, that the large March tally will be dwarfed by the April one, so we need an effective way of clearing the dross quickly and doing the best we can with the exceptions.

By the way, see Fourtheenth Naval District!

All the best. John (talk) 05:49, 4 April 2024 (CDT)

I have my own method of tallying up what needs to be checked. And don't forget to look at "What Links Here"! Also, remember if a longer article is NOT written solely by HCB and is not a stub, do not just automatically delete it, but instead probably run it by me for safety. I've found a whole lot of treatises that HCB wrote about history--as though he is some kind of history expert--including hidden gems such as Vietnam Wars (notice the s), which is really an alternative version of Vietnam War which contains all his personal views about the war. It has to go, but not until I've managed to mine its links in-out and Related Articles several branches deep. Sigh. He was worse that I had ever imagined. He also wrote similar alternate histories around World War II (often disguised with World War Two instead of II)--apparently, dozens of them. They need to be rooted out and removed. Talk about violating the original research rules! Pat Palmer (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2024 (CDT)

And if you are listing the Related Article contents somewhere, please make them available to me. I want to keep at eye on what is being deleted, and if you are mass-deleting hundreds of articles at a time, I cannot do so. It's not that I don't trust you, but more that I need to be able to defend what we are doing, so please keep me in the loop.Pat Palmer (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2024 (CDT)

Sorry, Pat, I should have said it is "What Links Here" that I use for gathering page link titles — and the rest from each article's RA pages. At present, it's all going into User:John Leach/workshop3 but I agree it would be best to set that page up in the deletion area. Your CZ:Suspect article list is similar to mine except that you're using related article links and mine are direct links. My workshop3 is being rebuilt at the moment to integrate everything I found this afternoon — currently about 3,000 titles but about 90% will be duplicates.

If the article history shows the work was partly done by another editor, then it either goes into review or else I revise it myself and keep it, so it's sole HCB ones only which go straight into PD (sole HCB includes those where another editor might have made minor edits — corrections, in the main). If an article by a different editor should be unsatisfactory, I put it in PD too, and that is useful because it illustrates how PD will work in the longer term when all the excess is gone.

I'm aware of Vietnam Wars. I renamed it a while back and I remember thinking it needs much more than that, but I decided to reconsider it at a later date. As you have said above, the problem is much, much worse than we could ever have imagined, which is why I've decided to take a hard line against him. I honestly believe drastic action is necessary but it includes rooting out the less obvious inputs too. One thing he was diligent about was piling everything into RA pages ad nauseum and that is actually our way into and along the trail. Something I see nearly every time is a new name, usually a person like a journalist, on each RA page. I always think I should follow that to see if it opens into a clearing but they are always dead ends!

I will keep you informed as I understand your concerns. Let me rebuild the workshop3 first and then recreate it in Category:Articles for deletion. I'll write to you again later on. John (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2024 (CDT)

John, I can use the replace function in the editor to convert all the links to redlinks instead of templates if you like. As of HCB, it's theoretically okay for someone not a historian to write about history, but given the overall behavior and past record of his mis-representing his credentials, and also not having any kind of formal expertise in history, and also bullying people to take over topics he thought he knew best about, and then not even providing adequate sources for his accounts of history, I am inclined to delete any long "history" he has written as being of suspect reliability. And then, one doesn't have to look very hard at these treatises to see that they are not objective and also exhibit an extreme obsession with war and militarism. This is probably several months of sustained effort now. 8000+ stubs? The vast majority of those came from him and will likely need to go. And incidentally, I am also tackling 600+ articles flagged as "External", which means they were copied from WP often more than 15 years ago and never improved, sometimes not ever linked. Each of those (not necessarily from HCB) require review. In the end, I don't want to have ANY articles left with "External" (#4) status. They either need to be deleted or improved, possibly having WPAttribution added near the bottom, and reclassified as internal. Pat Palmer (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2024 (CDT)

Hi, Pat. For now at least, I've recreated my workshop3 file as CZ:PD target articles and placed it in Category:Articles for deletion. I hope you don't mind, but I've put CZ:Suspect article list into that category too. I think we should keep all files concerning deletion or investigation together. I've copied everything in Suspect into Target. Nearly all of it was duplication but I've outsorted the duplicates and what we have left in that file is some 2,250 items, although a good many are redlinks. We'll have to decide how to take the investigation process forward but it is an adjunct to deletion. Category:Articles for deletion March has 1,200 nominations and it looks as if all of them need to go.

I like to write about history myself but, unless a passage is something indisputable or common knowledge, I really do think it should be sourced and I also think an alternative view should be presented if there is one. I'm currently watching Ken Burns' series about Vietnam which has just been re-run over here. One thing I really like about it is how it presents both viewpoints and has a number of VietCong veterans speaking, as well as the American veterans.

I've seen several examples of HCB's overbearing attitude on talk pages. One that has annoyed me is his insistence that any codename must be fully capitalised. Until I came across his stuff, I have NEVER (sorry!) seen Operation Market Garden written in capitals. My father-in-law took part in Market Garden (he was a paratrooper) until he was arrested by those nice chaps in the Waffen SS. As you may imagine, everyone in our family is very interested in the Bridge Too Far, but Jim himself would rarely talk about it.

HCB did create many of the lemmas, but I worked through the As a while back and a lot were done by Daniel Mietchen, especially scientific terminology, so we might not be too bad on lemmas as a whole. Also, because of his desire to overfill every RA page, the HCB lemmas are easy to find.

If you like, I'll try and help with the externals, but I think the deletions have to be my priority for now until we have cleared a substantial chunk of the excess.

Are you happy for me to carry on as I have been doing today? Deleting the March noms and listing all links and relateds?

I'll have to sign off now, but I'll be back tomorrow. John (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2024 (CDT)

Yes, carry on and thank you. Pat Palmer (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2024 (CDT)

A bit of progress

Hi, Pat. I've checked all articles that start with a digit (year, ordinal, or other numeric) and they are all accounted for. Some need to be reviewed but there are none in PD at present. I've got a list of 60-odd coded titles from AAQ to AVR in my workshop4 file, all lifted from PD. I'm working through those and finding a lot of extra suspects among their links and relateds, meaning the big picture is becoming more complete.

Just one worry, though. You may have noticed that I've edited 5-fluorouracil and breast cancer today. We certainly must ensure that medical information is reliably sourced or has been written by a qualified practitioner. John (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2024 (CDT)

Your methodical approach is great and allows you to feel a deserved sense of accomplishment. Since Breast cancer is now many years old AND is External (never improved since copied from WP), I will delete it. I know literally dozens of women who've been treated for breast cancer, and two have died of it (one a man, actually), and I can safely say that treatments and understanding of it have continued to evolve. Treatment nowadays is VERY different that it was back in the 1990's, and they are more able to determine exactly which kind of cancer it is these days and use a targeted treatment. Thanks for pointing that article out. Pat Palmer (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2024 (CDT)

Oops, now I see that Breast cancer is NOT external and has been worked on by really good writers. I will leave it. Anyway, congrats on reaching a milestone! As we go on, the cross-links among these militaristic treatise will be fewer and so deletions will become simpler, I hope. Pat Palmer (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2024 (CDT)

Decision

Pat, I am sorry about this but, having considered the benefits and constraints of CZ membership for several days, I have decided to move on and I will no longer be contributing to the site. The cons heavily outweigh the pros, I'm afraid, especially the amount of time that is needed to try and knock thousands of articles into shape. Sorry again, but there it is. I wish you well and I hope you will eventually succeed in making CZ into a good site. All the best. John (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2024 (CDT)

A heads-up

I sent you an email a few minutes ago... About 850 words.

As the person paying the Lion's Share of the bills, and for other reasons, I will defer to you as the ultimate decision maker. I won't undermine your decisions. I would, however, appreciate having my input taken into account, to the extent you feel you can do that.

If you want to respond, and want to respond here, you have my permission to republish that email on the citizendium, or to merely quote it here...

Cheers! George Swan (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2024 (CDT)

Hello

Hello, Pat, I am happy to be part of Citizendium. I have two questions: where is possible to work on articles using a "sandbox"? Is perhaps the project for a Citizendium app—Wikipedia already has an app—going to be considered, in the future, if I may ask? I thank you for your help --Dario Agazzi (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2024 (CDT)

Hi Dario! I answered your sandbox question on your Discussion page. And no, there are no plans for a Citizendium "app" at present. Have you tried the one for Wikipedia? We do have at least one skin that is mobile friendly, which is important because a lot of our traffic now occurs on mobile phones or tablets. Pat Palmer (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2024 (CDT)

Thank you for your answer and for the link to the "sandbox". Yes, I use the WP app but it has several problems. Which is the mobile friendly skin? --Dario Agazzi (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2024 (CDT)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments on my discussion page. I am glad to see that you are deleting some articles. I now forgot which articles (some of them approved) were particularly inaccurate. I remember there was a string of short articles on Greek and Roman mythology which even I found ridiculous. I tried to correct some of them, but they would have been better deleted altogether. Martin Wyatt (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2024 (CST)