User talk:Michael Hardy

Welcome!

Tasks: start a new article • add basic, wanted or requested articles • add definitions • add metadata • edit new pages

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start, and see Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, our help system and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any user or the editors for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! See CZ:Discipline Workgroups to add yourself to whichever author workgroups you choose. -- David Tribe 06:14, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"|  |}

Welcome, new editor! We're very glad you've joined us. Here are pointers for a quick start. Also, when you get a chance, please read The Editor Role. You can look at Getting Started and our help system for other introductory pages. It is also important, for project-wide matters, to join the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list. Announcements are also available via Twitter. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any administrator for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and thank you! We appreciate your willingness to share your expertise, and we hope to see your edits on Recent changes soon.

Great to see you here, Michael. I've made you an editor. --Larry Sanger 17:43, 13 April 2007 (CDT)

Thank you. Michael Hardy 20:34, 13 April 2007 (CDT)

A few words about workgroups

We are indeed happy to have you in the community. We would also like to introduce you to Citizendium's Workgroups and encourage you to--

1. Join a workgroup if you haven't already
2. Help us add workgroup category tags to articles, especially any articles you create
3. Help us spread the word about workgroups within the CZ community

What are workgroups? To answer that question, I'd like to give you a quick tour.

• Start by checking the various workgroups we have at CZ: List of Workgroups. This link can also be found in the left navigation-bar in the 2nd box (Project Pages), 3rd link in that box (Workgroups). The Workgroup Home(s) can be found in the 2nd column in the List of Workgroups.

• For the purposes of this tour, please take a look at the Biology Workgroup Home: CZ:Biology_Workgroup.
• Now let's take a look at the first table on the Biology Workgroup Home (below).

Workgroups are no longer used for group communications, but they still are used to group articles into fields of interest. Each article is assigned to 1-3 Workgroups via the article's Metadata.

Biology article	All articles (1,621)	To Approve (0)	Editors: active (1) / inactive (46) and Authors: active (441) / inactive (0)	Workgroup Discussion
	Recent changes	Citable Articles (25)
		Subgroups (12.5)

Checklist-generated categories: Underlinked (751) Cat Check (505) Cleanup (0) Subpage categories: Definitions (1,560) Related Articles (1,439 to check 708) Bibliography (399) External Links (448) Gallery (30) Video (33)

Missing subpage categories: Definitions (34) Related Articles (15) Bibliography (32) External Links (33) Article statuses: 104 Developed (status=1) 677 Developing (status=2) 699 Stub (status=3) 99 External (status=4) 128 Advanced (status 0-1) 805 Nonstub (status 0-2) 1,504 Internal (status 0-3)

• In the 2nd column, find the link that says, "all articles," which lists all articles that users have placed [[Category:Biology Workgroup]] at the bottom of their articles.
• Now click on the "recent changes" link underneath the "all articles" in the 2nd column in the top table. This lists all recent changes in articles that have been tagged [[Category:Biology Workgroup]]. In one glance, you can view all the changes that happened while you were away! Feel free to click on all the links to get an idea how the information for your workgroup is organized. All these lists are populated by articles that have the categories properly placed at the bottom of their pages.

This completes your virtual-tour of CZ workgroups. I hope you can see the usefulness of having all articles in Citizendium tagged properly with your Workgroup categories. Make sure to add the Workgroup category labels to your new articles. This is an important part of the Approval process.

Be sure to join a workgroup and take part in this opportunity to collaborate with others who have similar interests as you. You can see what others are working on in the Workgroup recent changes and join in! Remember, we want you to be bold in your contributions at Citizendium.

To add yourself to a workgroup, use the form [[Category:Education Authors|Smith, Bob]], etc., and add it to your user page. Substitute the proper work group for "Education" in the example, and your name-Last, First for the names in the example.

Do not add yourself to the Editors list, only CZ staff add "Editors" to user pages after proper review of applications is completed. To apply to become an editor, please see Editor Application Review Procedure.

To add a workgroup category tag to an article, use the form [[Category:Education Workgroup]] at the bottom of the article. Substitute in the proper workgroup for "Education" in the example.

If you are from Wikipedia originally, you may want to check out this article:

• Introduction to CZ for Wikipedians

Article upload

Hi, please see [CZ:CZ4WP#Citizendium_is_not_a_mirror]] and CZ:How to convert Wikipedia articles to Citizendium articles. Thanks! —–Stephen Ewen 14:56, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

Recently uploaded image(s)

Hi. Thanks for contributing to CZ! I hate to have to tell you this but one or more images you recently uploaded are lacking clear copyright data. Please carefully review the image(s) you uploaded while referencing Images Help—Copyrights. Please fix the problem rapidly, as the image(s) will otherwise have to be deleted. Thanks! — Stephen Ewen 18:56, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

See particularly Help:Images#Images_from_Wikipedia.2C_Wikimedia_Commons.2C_Flickr.2C_etc.. Stephen Ewen 19:40, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

page move

Hi Michael, I saw you were asking about page moves. I can do that for you. Do you need one moved? --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:47, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

I think Earth Sciences, with the capital initial "S", should be moved either to earth sciences, with a lower-case initial, or earth science (which term, I seem to recall, was used in the article).

So is it impossible for most authors and editors to move pages? Michael Hardy 20:16, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

I changed it to earth science for you.

We are discussing the issue of allowing users to make moves currently. We had to prevent page changes due to vandalism early on, but that doesn't seem to be such a high priority anymore, so keep an eye out for any change in that policy. --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:28, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

Complex analysis

I notice you have deleted essentially everything I wrote about complex analysis in the complex number article. That's fine, as I really think it belongs in another article, and put it in there at the request of someone else, anyway. I do wonder, though, if you are still making modifications, or should I just remove the section "What about calculus?" It really serves no purpose there, anyway. Greg Woodhouse 15:12, 16 April 2007 (CDT)

I had not realized I'd done that; I'm now wondering if it's a software glitch. I was attempting to do only the things I mentioned in my edit summary. I'll go back and take another look. Michael Hardy 15:29, 16 April 2007 (CDT)

Ekhem, I noticed that my modest reworking of complex number was reverted too (see talk).. While I am fully open to change (and begging every native speaker for copy editing), I'd like to discuss substantial "logical" changes you propose before application. CZ has 0 unexplained revert rule :-) (but I'm taking into account what you've stated above)--AlekStos 17:30, 16 April 2007 (CDT)

Imaginary number

Hi Michael. It's good to see you here. However, this isn't only a social call. I got a bit confused when reading imaginary number, and it seems that your edit has something to do with it. Could you please reply at talk:imaginary number. Cheers, Jitse Niesen 05:36, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

TeX versus non-TeX mathematical notation

I replied on my talk page. --Catherine Woodgold 08:34, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

your remark about prime numbers

Michael, would you mind reading CZ:Professionalism before you again state and write down the comment you made about something in prime numbers. Your tone is far from professional and can be seen by some as rude and offensive. We do strive for courtesy, not rudeness. Thank you. Robert Tito |  Talk  18:21, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

I see the same rudeness in your comments about factorization. May I remind you this is not a play ground to practise rudeness. Please mind your language. Robert Tito |  Talk  18:24, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

Why is it rude to mention that an article in its present state badly needs work? I said the first sentence was not even a sentence, and that is certainly true, and is reason to say the article needed improvement. I also said the article certainly needs work. Do you consider that rude? I find it hard to imagine anyone looking at that article without thinking it certainly needs a lot more work. Do you really think that maybe whoever wrote it regarded it as a finished product rather than just a start? That would not have occurred to me, and I doubt it's true. Michael Hardy 18:29, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

I quote: deleted nonsense. I'm surprised to find such a comment in an article that someone called "ready for approval" if somebody overlooked something it is no need to flag the person not fit to make that statement. In that I consider it rude. The other remark is in the same line of communicating. It is not professional to implicitely say: that person is not fit to make a remark about readiness. It is however professional to point out what point have omissions and need improvement. But that is another approach, it is an approach reaching out to collaborate. Robert Tito |  Talk  18:33, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

I don't think I implied anyone was not fit to make such a statement; rather I implied that the statement itself was a mistake in this case. Michael Hardy 18:37, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

EDIT CONFLICT There ARE no finished products on the wiki. An approved article is a frozen version only and it is abundantly clear that this article is up for approval and will be approved imminently unless a mathematics editor removes the approval nomination template which has been placed by 2 separate mathematics editors. Michael, "nonesense" is not professional as a criticism, is it? Perhaps to a student, perhaps, never to a peer, not in the context that you used it. This article will be copyedited after approval, by the way. If you think that the article is misleading or inaccurate such that it should not be approved, even so, the two courses open to you are (1) contact the math editors who are named in the nominating template or (2) remove the template. As approvals editor I respect your right (as a mathematic editor) to do so, but this is not an action to be taken on any but very serious grounds. Doing so implies a gross error in judgement on the part of the editors and authors who have been diligently involved in the work. If that is the case,if there are gross errors that have been perpetrated here then these should be made painstakingly clear in the talk page, and in the same fashion as a rebuttal would be on the stage of an international meeting at a FORMAL meeting of distinguished mathematicians, not in a perjorative or dismissive manner. Nancy Sculerati 18:47, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

I think you're confusing two different articles with each other. The article (unique factorization) about which I said it certainly needs a lot of work, and that that author could not have considered it anything beyond a bare start, is not in any sense being considered for approval. Michael Hardy 18:57, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

Apparently, the confusion is not on my part: (diff) (hist) . . ! Prime number‎; 22:57 . . Michael Hardy (Talk | contribs | block) (→There are infinitely many primes - deleted nonsense. I'm surprised to find such a comment in an article that someone called "ready for approval".) Nancy Sculerati 19:08, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

It did appear to be on your part, since you said there are no finished products. That appeared to be a response to my statement that a certain article did not appear to be a finished product. I said that article certainly needs a lot of work and the first sentence was not even a sentence. I was told that that was rude. I responded that I don't think whoever wrote it could be offended since it looked as if they intended it as a bare start on an article rather than anything like a finished product. So you responded by telling me there are no finished products, and that the article in question was being considered for approval. Doesn't that look as if you're confusing two different articles with each other? Michael Hardy 19:20, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

The remark was about your style of commenting. That too is part of how we communicate. Robert Tito |  Talk  19:27, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

Robert Tito (who also quoted your "nonesense" statement) and I are both clearly referring to the comment that I copied above. You can take responsibility for it and apologize, or not. Certainly, diversionary arguments do not further this discussion. My interest here is in seeing that articles are approved appropriately and I am satisfied that Prime number is being approved appropriately. The matter of your comments on several articles, other user's pages, and deflection of criticism by diversionary arguments used here are a reflection of a "style" that is the business of the constabulary, of which I am not a member. Nancy Sculerati 19:33, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

The fact is, the phrase I deleted from the prime number article appeared to be probably the result of something like momentary absent-mindedness rather than of misunderstanding that would be the occasion for an explanation of what I objected to about it. I'm sorry if I was mistaken in that. Here is the explanation that I would have included in my edit summary if I hadn't had that impression

Uniqueness of the factorization is not the fact that should be cited here; _existence_ of a factorization is; uniqueness is irrelevant to this point.

My arguments are not diversionary. "Diversionary" would mean I was trying to change the subject rather than sticking to the points raised by the posters above. I was not.

I remain puzzled about something: If you meant my edit summary in the prime number article, rather than the one in unique factorization, then why did you begin with a comment about "no finished products"?

I also don't see why my edit summary in unique factorization would be considered rude. I said the first sentence was not even a sentence, and that the article needs a lot more work. Both comments seem completely reasonable. Michael Hardy 21:32, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

If indeed it was a momentary lapse, I wouldn't blame those who groaned when they saw it.

Your slam against Wikipedia is noted. Michael Hardy 22:21, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

how to communicate

Even comments are a way of commenting, and if we turn the tables and you were the other person you wouldnt be pleased by your momentary lapse of concentration and the way people respond to that. For that reason conform to CZ:Professionalism. This is NOT wikipedia. Robert Tito |  Talk  21:44, 6 May 2007 (CDT)