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: 13:34

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

How'd I do??

Using the photo upload feature was a snap. Just like wikiHow in usability. Added the photo and included

the attribution in the cutline. I'm not sure if that's the "right" way here or not. An editor can change

it, if desired. Thanks so much for all your help. See: [1]

Mary Ash 23:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Mary Ash

Archive

Hi Matt, you forgot to add an {{archive box}}! --Chris Key 14:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE don't resign!

Matt, please don't resign. We need you and CZ will lose a major force for good if you resign. Please reconsider. Milton Beychok 05:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already spoken to you privately. Whilst I hope you reconsider, I understand your reasons. Enjoy being an author again! --Chris Key 09:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Popping in to say "hi!"

I wish you had not resigned from your position. You are truly needed here. Thanks to you I stayed and have contributed a few articles. More will be on the way. Please keep in touch as you are the first, and only, net friend I've made here. Mary Ash 05:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thought you'd like to read this

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/John_E._Mack in reference to this article and how I am trying to learn how to do references without HELP from your editors. (unindent)I've done my best to add the citations you requested. I hope you are enjoying your laugh fest at my feeble attempts to learn how to do this. May you all enjoy your party at my expense of trying to learn and help. Mary Ash 02:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Mary Ash 02:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just added this:

I DO UNDERSTAND THAT! Shouting intended. What I don't understand is how a wiki that desperately needs authors treats them so poorly. You've treated me like I am supposed to LEARN everything about your wiki INSTANTLY and I am sorry to say that's impossible. I am bright but not bright enough to learn in a second what took you guys awhile to learn. I did try to add the references and I am sure there'll be complaints about how the article should be deleted because it wasn't done right. There is no winning. May you all enjoy your little party of a few as it will remain that way until YOUR wiki learns to ENCOURAGE new authors rather than stomp on them until they desire not to help at all. Yesterday I was in a quandary as to what to do. I love writing and I would love to write here but it's nye impossible due to the hostile environment. So go enjoy your laugh at my expense and feel good about yourselves for running me off. I quit unless a constable (which I notified) takes action to improve my ability to contribute here. May you all do your happy, happy dance. Mary Ash 02:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried copy and pasting wiki markup from another page as I have never done this. Two of your editors have refused to help after criticizing the article for lack of references. I did leave all references used in the exlinks. As for now I quit. I'm sorry I know how hard you tried to help me. I know how hard I tried to reach out to you guys. I'm sorry but it's not going to work out unless this become a less hostile environment. I did leave forum message to that effect too. On a positive note: Ro and Aleta both have been very helpful and encouraging. I will miss them as they represented the best of CZ. Mary Ash 03:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I put one of your references in on the bottom of the page using the link that I put on your talk page. Take a look. You have to check off a few of those check boxes (including 'use the ref tags'), but just use trial and error and you'll be an expert in no time. I wouldn't bother asking some people to help. D. Matt Innis 03:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of the statements above are quite inaccurate. The issue was not markup, but the absence of bibliographic information. See Hayford's comment as well. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(unident) Well I could write that's full of excrement but I won't. This is what I posted to the Mack talk page. I have included citations in the exlinks and I've written that all along. Posted to talk page: You can NOT expect someone to learn ALL that YOU know in two weeks. I've complied with every request made by CZ editors once I learned what was needed. I DO understand stylebooks and citations. I was required as a PAID journalist to LEARN the AP Stylebook as part of my job. I also kept a copy of my AP Stylebook at my desk for reference. NO ONE including YOU or anyone else has sent me to a link explaining how to insert the references. I HAVE included every reference used in every article written at CZ. They were in the exlinks and I notified the editors and anyone else where to find them. Nor has anyone bothered to show me HOW to insert the Wiki Mark Up the whole time I've tried to learn. As to the photo insertions, and I've done plenty at wikiHow and as a paid journalist, I gave appropriate credit. The source was listed along with a link to where the photo could be found. What I have discovered is some folks at CZ are friendly and helpful. Some are not. Some people's priority to criticize others seems to exceed their priority to have the site succeed.Mary Ash 04:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Left this 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 16:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to creating an environment where people like you can work and actually have fun. Do keep an eye out, and don't forget to vote in the upcoming elections. D. Matt Innis 17:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Assistance with userpage

When I signed up I provided more personal information than I probably should have , especially as it was copied over to my userpage on creation. My userpage as it is now is fine, as I have removed the information, but obviously it is still avaiable in the page history. Could you please assist in rendering this personal information inaccessible? Or possibly pass this request to someone who can? The simplest methods that cpme to mind would be to delete the page and then recreate it with the current content, or to simply change the visibility of the older versions (there are only 2). Bradley Fleming 01:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Bradley, we could use a little more information in our bios! We want people to know who we are at Citizendium ;) Let me know if I can help with anything else. If I'm not available, feel free to ask anyone and I'm sure they will be glad to help. D. Matt Innis 01:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will probably getting around to expanding the bio, but without some of the information that was removed. Bradley Fleming 01:44, 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 John E. 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 17:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Petroleum naphtha is due for final approval today

Hi, Matt: Can you do the final approval or is that done only by Hayford? Milton Beychok 17:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Something strange with approval of Petroleum naphtha

Matt, although the Draft version of the approved article has the references intact, somehow the locked, approved section does not have the references. What happened? Milton Beychok 17:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was weird! It totally removed the refs. I have just started using Apples Safari browser and it has some kinks. It could also be that I just added that WikiEd that makes the refs show up a different color. I'll bet that had something to do with it. I'll keep an eye out next time! I'm glad you caught it (and Hayford fixed it :) D. Matt Innis 21:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was just talking to my computer guru friend about this strange occurrence (and other problems with browsers) and he said, "Every browser is like an interpreter -- it reads new text line by line and interprets what to do with it. So if one browser sees some text with two curly {s in it ahead of a SPACE, it does one thing, but MAYBE another browser, which is being rewritten by some gear-heads somewhere, looks at the SAME thing and decides that it doesn't like that SPACE and simply gets rid of it." I think that this must be what happened when you did the Copy and Paste of the text -- the browser decided that it didn't like those <Ref) things for some reason and just decided to ignore them entirely. Make sense? Hayford Peirce 22:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm just glad it got straightened out. Thanks all, Milton Beychok 22:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Used the reference maker link to write this article

I used the reference link maker to create this article. It took me about four hours to research and write this article. I used the reference tool you sent which made it so easy. Let me know what you think, if you have time. Thanks! Mary Ash 04:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Requesting Constable Assistance

Request Constable assistance concerning edits and accusations concerning this article: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Schnitzel. Check the talk page and edit history and you will discover the continued harassment and demeaning behavior by one of your admins. Explain to me why I bothered to try again?Mary Ash 20:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mary, I'll take a look. D. Matt Innis 21:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

I'm sorry but I just needed to vent. Almost, well every article I have submitted, has been a battle. Mary Ash 01:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. You can vent all you want... just hit cancel instead of save ;)

Nobody promised that collaboration would be easy! The goal is to end up with accurate information and the idea is that the more heads the better. Of course, with more heads, that means more egos. The real challenge is fighting your own ego when someone makes a change that is actually better :) D. Matt Innis 01:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Your fix

Governing councils and ancillary positions - why didn't I think of that? Ro Thorpe 00:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha, you saw how many time I didn't think of that! D. Matt Innis 00:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the good Dyscalculia edits

There's a ton of information inside the PDF file referenced in the article. It's one of the best I read. I may work on it some more later but I needed a rest. The brain is tired. My eyes are swollen from too much computer use and I need a break. Thanks again!Mary Ash 03:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it was fun. I saw the PDF and agree it is pretty involved. I wish I had the texts where she got the information, too. Daniel is a psychology editor, I think. He might have a lot of good stuff. D. Matt Innis 03:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A question

Matt, this is about the reviewing of requests for membership. When a request is put on "Hold" or is "Rejected", how long is it before they are completely expired and expunged from the queues? It seems as if that almost never happens. Milton Beychok 04:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

30 days for those on hold, 7 days for rejected ones. --Chris Key 05:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A different question

I have been looking at the special pages, and the page for the shortest articles gives these results [2] - basically all the same, thousands of pages each containing one letter or number. I have read the discussion here and here and I still can't work out what they are for! Do you know? Cheers! David Finn 07:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

These pages are how David Yamakuchi wants to store chemical properties for use in property tables. They are used by Template:PTofE, see Periodic Table of Elements. --Peter Schmitt 09:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, although I am not sure that the periodic table is where all the short articles are coming from. Take the example of carbon, if you click every link in the little box for carbon in the periodic table template all the links go to an article of some sort. To get to the short pages you have to go to the properties page of the article about carbon where you find a table, and it is clicking on the elements of the table that leads you to the short articles, like this one and this also. So the short pages are, from what I can see, repititions of the details already in the table, and are unlikely to be expanded. So I was just wondering what they were for. Cheers. David Finn 10:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

David, I did not analyze the coding of this template. But if you look at Periodic Table of Elements in edit mode then you find that it uses many of these pages. Anyway, as you can see from the talk pages, David Yamakuchi vehemently proposed to use such single data pages for this purpose, and he created many of them. (I do not know if he completed this job.) Some of us (including myself) opposed this idea. --Peter Schmitt 10:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that is a lot of articles. I have not followed the development of the periodic table since the early days, but it looks like it had some discussion and was thought out to some degree. From a constable perspective, an editor would have to look it over and give some guidance as to whether any of it was unnecessary and needed to be deleted. It should be documented somewhere so that we don't accidently delete something important that we won't know the effects of until it's too late. D. Matt Innis 11:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

They were for use in the property tables for the articles about each of the elements as well. For example, look at Chlorine and its edit page. There was indeed a lot of discussion about them. Milton Beychok 16:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It not only needs discussion from and editorial point of view (opinions were not very positive on it), but also from a technical point of view (efficiency). --Peter Schmitt 12:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

About new user Brian Kelly - UKOLN

Matt, please look at my comment about that new user's name on Chris Key's talk page. Thanks. Milton Beychok 16:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have already asked him Milt. --Chris Key 16:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. It seems that we already have a Brian Kelly, so he had to make another choice. We're working on getting him a better name. D. Matt Innis 18:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a pest. But why "B Kelly" instead of "B. Kelly" ? Milton Beychok 21:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I am more surprised about seeing an even more ambiguous name apparently regarded as a solution for disambiguation. I would recommend to disambiguate user names (just like everything else) by way of parentheses, with UKOLN being a good choice in this case. --Daniel Mietchen 21:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, retaining the first name is preferable. But using a designation like UKOLN -- that may be valid for a limited time only -- is not a good choice. --Peter Schmitt 21:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It was the name he picked. D. Matt Innis 22:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

But shooldn't a name -- the name with which he wants to be addressed -- be in the signature? --Peter Schmitt 22:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What if it is already taken. Are you suggesting Brian K. I suppose that's a possibility. Maybe we would rather do that. D. Matt Innis 22:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Peter, using "the name with which (anyone) wants to be addressed" just opens the door to pseudonyms. Milton Beychok 23:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think pseudonyms or other additional identifiers would be fine if put in parentheses after the real name. --Daniel Mietchen 23:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Daniel, do you mean like: D. Matt Innis(Matt). D. Matt Innis 23:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Milt, I think you know that I was not talking of pseudonyms. But the use of an abbreviated name does not work. It is at least inconvenient. Should we write "Hello, B"? Or are we supposed to look at his user page first?. Perhaps "B Kelly (Brian)" would work. (Is this what you meant, Daniel.) But should another "Brian Kelly" register, then a new idea would be needed. (Only a generic solution like numbers would solve the problem completely.) --Peter Schmitt 23:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Brian Kelly is a very, very common name. Why not start numbering such members? Brian Kelly 1, Brian Kelly 2, etc. If we already have a Brian Kelly, then we could start with Brian Kelly 2.

Using UKOLN in parenthesis or in any other form strikes me as possibly being interpreted as promoting the UKOLN ... in other words, self promotion. Milton Beychok 23:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Numbers solve the problem in theory but not in practice - not everyone will find it easy to remember whether a particular comment had been made on the talk page of Brian Kelly 17, Brian Kelly 18, or perhaps Brian Kelly 42. Self-promotion could be a problem, but I am not sure it necessarily will: If Brian Kelly (Coca Cola) is editing the article Coke, then everyone will be warned, and if he goes on to edit Charles Dickens, it will most likely not be a case of self-promotion any more. But I haven't thought this through yet. --Daniel Mietchen 23:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

@Matt: If we were to have several users "D. Matt Innis", I would prefer to see the "D." expanded first, or some other identifier added. Re-using "Matt", which is already in the original user name, does not provide much disambiguation power. In connection with Milt's comment on Self-promotion, what about having users choose a neutral identifier from a list of basic words (like here), or possibly the title of an article that they particularly care about? In such a scheme, I could be Daniel Mietchen (Brain morphometry), and if that were already taken, I could opt for Daniel Mietchen (Surface-based morphometry). This would also be a bit more inviting in Recent Changes than names alone, and it would generally be more easy to remember than numbers. --Daniel Mietchen 00:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(EC)The parentheses would be a precedent that we should think hard about. It might be part of the solution, but we need to be consistent about what we put in them. We need to allow enough variation that several identically named people can register. B. Kelly (Brian) probably doesn't leave enough variation. Currently, when registering, the software will not allow the creation of an application if the name is already in use. I believe it asks the user to try another one (Chris would know for sure). Whatever method we choose, we'd have to have a way to explain the options to them while they were registering. Surely there is a solution that doesn't involve numbers, but I guess that would be the most simple from a sign-up process. D. Matt Innis 00:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

@Daniel, basic words.. Why not just alphabet. Brian Kelly A, Brian Kelly B, etc.. Then we would call the Brian B, or Brian BL if there were enough. D. Matt Innis 00:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Persnally, I would prefer a short disambiguation. Letters seem to be a good possibility (the second gets A, etc., unless middle name or a variant of the name can be used) Of course, Daniel's argument (easy to confuse, may still hold). Article names could be interpreted as "owning" that article. If a "long" disambiguation is wanted, then perhaps place of origin could be used. --Peter Schmitt 00:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I would be agreeable with either letters or numbers. How about asking Chris Key for his input? Milton Beychok 01:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Matt: Has there been a decision or resolution on how to handle B Kelly's user name? Milton Beychok 02:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Milt, Nope. I put it on the constable mailing list and received no response. Hopefully, we can take this discussion to a MC meeting once they get started. We need a decision once and for all. D. Matt Innis 02:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User account for Deepak Mahaan

Matt, I reconstructed his user bio (as I had done when his user page was created) by using asterisks instead of his bullets so as to have a listing of his accomplishments rather than a single run-on paragraph that was most difficult to read. I also reconstructed his categories as you asked me to do.

But just so I know in the future, why was a "renaming" needed? I don't understand why the the "move" wasn't sufficient or how renaming differs from moving. Milton Beychok 21:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Care to comment?

This discussion Talk:Memory_of_water#Digital_biology needs more opinions. Sandy Harris 23:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Final approval of Explosives due tomorrow

Matt, just a gentle reminder for either you or Chris. Milton Beychok 02:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Milt. It looks like it is on track for a single editor approval tomorrow! D. Matt Innis 03:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks from TJ, but . . .

My thanks to the constables who set me up so quickly, but there is a little over-enthusiasm involved. I received two accounts, one as "T.[space]J. Frazier" and the other as "T.[no space]J. Frazier". After looking at the two constructions in several type-styles, I decided that the space was indeed functional, so I'm keeping (and busily using) that one. Please feel free to vanish the other one; it is unconfirmed (never logged into). As a check, the active account already has half-a-dozen minor edits, the kind of little stuff I usually do. tj --T. J. Frazier 01:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi TJ, We noticed that, too! I've already deleted the T.J. account and removed the user pages as I noticed that you were using T. J. account. Hope you have fun! D. Matt Innis 04:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Couple questions really. In the search box (top of page) when I type what I want there are no suggestions based on what is available. On some sites when you start typing in the search box it starts giving you suggestions, like if I type Bar it might open a small box next to the search with suggestions like Barack Obama and Bart Simpson. I find that quite helpful as you know before you finish typing if you are heading for a red link. Can we have that?

Been looking at an approved article, Guglielmo Marconi, and the main article has no references, which are divided between the external links and bibliography section. While I understand the reasoning behind this, it means that someone wishing to research further a particular aspect of the article has no direct link to supporting material. The links, while annotated, do not enable the reader to quickly find information on a given aspect of the article, more there just to support the article as a whole. Is there a policy about this?

And finally, do you have an opinion on this question (the link is to Howards reply, the question preceeds it) about citing our experts? Cheers. David Finn 07:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ad 1: Please try it with "Bar" — works fine for me (using the Monobook skin). It's just that we do not have very many articles yet, so the feature is not as helpful as it could be. --Daniel Mietchen 12:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If it were that simple I wouldn't have had to ask! But you are correct, I was using a different skin which doesn't support the extra search box functionality - which brings up another question, why don't all the skins behave in roughly the same way? I like the search box but I don't like the monobook skin - I was using the default skin which doesn't support it. So, can we have the search box functionality of the monobook skin in the default skin? I think, especially because it is the default, it would be useful to newcomers. And thanks for the reply! David Finn 19:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi David, I see that you've received an answer on your first question which fosters another that I am not equipped to answer. However, we do have some capable programmers here (Daniel being one) that I think are able to make those changes programmatically. Our experience has been that changing skins has satisfied some while upsetting others, so we've decided that decisions need to be made in much the same way articles are written - by collaborating with others that might have different perspectives. Being bold certainly gets the attention and should trigger discussion and cooperation to make it better. Hopefully, the new charter has set up the Management Council where these decisions can be made after reasonable consideration of all the details. Your suggestions belong somewhere in that process - so do keep bringing them up.

The same goes for Howard's response to your observation and question concerning expertise. The obvious (and original idea) was that if three experts approved an article, then it would be much more likely to be accurate and unbiased and therefore considered a good reference source. Of course, that remains up to those who actually use our materials. As you've noted, the approved version is locked, but every other version can be altered and impossible to tell who authored what text. The only thing we can tell is that an approved article does have an expert's endorsement (whether he/she wrote it or not). This means that only approved articles can really be endorsed by Citizendium. The only other way we have been able to consider an expert's opinion is to allow them to write a 'signed article' as a subpage. It would be up to the reader to decide whether they want to believe that writer's version based on their advertised credentials. I'm sure that we might be able to figure out a way to cite our experts, even if it is with a link to their user page, but it needs to be thought through carefully, because unless the article is approved, any author can come along and change that experts words without the expert knowing and might damage that expert's reputation.

Keep those thoughts coming and take part in these very important discussions on the fora and on the Councils over the next few months and years. D. Matt Innis 23:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hey Matt, if you have a moment (or two), can you look at some of the discussion we're having in the homeopathy article. I made a series of recommended improvements, but Howard and I are having a challenging time getting along (and more important, we're not developing consensus). I find that he mispresents my recommendations and comments and that he makes up exaggerated statements from me as though I actually said (or even suggested) them. I had taken a rest from CZ for many months and decided to try to help the article. I initially thought that I would comment in the Talk section only and try to simply allow others to do the editing. I assume good faith, but I just do not see it. Several editors at the homeopathy just have strong antagonism to homeopathy, and they want the article to represent their viewpoint. I don't have a problem with having their viewpoint represented, but I want the article to also respond to their viewpoint.

As it turns out, I'm going out of the country on Wednesday for a week and will probably not do much editing here...but I will try to watch and participate a bit. Still, it seems that a referee is needed...or perhaps, I may just choose to not participate and to work to not turn this Draft into an article. Dana Ullman 03:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Matt, but I consider Mr. Ullman to more than equally misrepresent, changes subjects, etc. I don't see good faith either. Bluntly, it is impossible to create consensus when two sides consider the others to be idiots. At best, it can be reasonable to state what homeopaths believe, and the biological science objections to those beliefs.

It is fair to say, I believe,that there is strong antagonism to homeopathy from quite a few participants in the article, including Health Sciences Editors as well as Authors. Mr. Ullman seems to consider "respond to their viewpoint" being a statement that homeopathy works. I do not presume to tell homeopaths how they believe their remedies work, but I strongly object to inaccurate characterizations of conventional drugs, characterizations that, for example, presume to tell drugs designed using such principles as receptor structure-activity relationships, "might" be actually working by the principle of similars. Equally, using appeals to immunologic authority over a century out of date is also not a plausible or nonconfrontational approach. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Dana - you say you are going out of town for a while and won't be able to do much editing on Citizendium, but a quick look at your contributions might indicate that few would find a lack of participation from you unusual. That quick look also shows that in several years of being a Citizen you have only ever edited the article on Homeopathy, apart from when you reverted Citizendium's founder over at the Charles Darwin article - a reversion, I might add, that was over homeopathy.

Dana - the encyclopedia is about more than one article. Your contributions and user page give the impression of someone who is advocating homeopathy. Your goal appears not to be the general improvement of Citizendium but the advocacy of homeopathy, which also seems to be your profession.

Dana - I would strongly encourage you to broaden your Citizendium experience to include topics other than homeopathy. There are many opportunities to contribute to this encyclopedia without restricting those to advocating your profession. David Finn 08:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I do feel like we need to take the high road on this issue and learn a bit from Rational Wiki's page on homeopathy. (Chunbum Park 09:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC))

Taking the high road and learning from their page are certainly not mutually exclusive, but I do think they go a bit far. I'm not sure the licensing allows us to use the wonderful XKCD cartoon, but we should definitely link to it. Sandy Harris 10:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I've been watching the conversation on Talk:Homeopathy and find it fascinating, yet unsurprisingly unproductive to date. I am somewhat concerned that some of the discussion skirts the professionalism policy and appears to be an attempt to impugn the character of our editors and authors. As a Healing Arts editor, I won't intervene as a constable on the page and will limit myself to my area of expertise concerning the alternative medicine practice part of the article. I leave the science to the Biologists and Health Science editors.

I don't see a problem with Dana only working on Homeopathy related articles, as a matter of fact, I consider this essential to Citizendium that is different than Wikipedia. Experts don't usually have the time to write about subjects that they have little interest, so I would hope Dana feels comfortable just keeping us informed about the subjects that he has editorship over.

Having said all that, it is my experience that once people finish with name-calling and chest pounding, there is usually some small bit of meat that we might be able to use in the article. In this case, I see a tidbit that Dana mentioned that Homeopaths do more than use materials diluted beyond Avogadro's number, which is enlightening and probably something that even Howard can agree belong in an encyclopedia article.

I'll keep watching.

D. Matt Innis 12:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I'll leave it to the experts to decide where the line is drawn. David Finn 11:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)