User talk:Anthony.Sebastian: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Reuven Lazarus
imported>Peter Jackson
 
(493 intermediate revisions by 50 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Usertime-text|Anthony}}{{Template:Utc|-7}}<br><BR>
'''Creating my User Talk Page.'''  --Anthony.Sebastian<br>  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony Sebastian|(Talk)]] 13:48, 19 December 2006 (CST)
'''Creating my User Talk Page.'''  --Anthony.Sebastian<br>  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony Sebastian|(Talk)]] 13:48, 19 December 2006 (CST)
==Intro==
Current UTC Time: -8 hours <br>
Current UTC Time: {{Template:Utc|-7}}<br>
{|style="color:green;background-color:#ffffcc;" cellpadding="20" cellspacing="0" border="2" align="center"
|[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Articles_to_Approve To Approve articles]
|[http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller/?type=&id= Diberri citation maker]
|[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting#HTML Help Wikiformatting]
|[http://test.citizendium.org/wiki/Welcome_to_Citizendium Citizendium Test Wiki]
|[[CZ:How to use Bugzilla]]
|-
|}
----
----
{{archive box|auto=long}}
{{TOC|left}}
{{-}}
== Please review [[Los Alamos National Laboratory]] for spelling, grammar, and whatever  ==


== test ==
Anthony, I would very much appreciate it if you would review [[Los Alamos National Laboratory]] for spelling, grammar, and whatever else you think may be needed. Let me have your comments on the article's Talk page. Thanks, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 20:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
==Hi Anthony==
Back after a holiday - I take it I'm not still needed for Alcmeion?[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 08:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


:Thanks, Gareth.  [[Alcmaeon]] (a.k.a., Alkmaion): Approved.  Hope you enjoyed your vacation, though you may have meant 'vacation from CZ'.  OMBs need such.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 22:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 16:08, 14 February 2007 (CST)
== Asking for your help again ==


:That looks good.  You got that from four tildes? if so you're in business. :) [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 16:19, 14 February 2007 (CST)
Anthony, the [[Project Apollo]] article needs a critical review by a History author like yourself. See [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Project_Apollo here] the documentation of my recent extensive edits to that article.


Topic sig:
Anything you can do to make it more readable, more interesting, etc. would be appreciated. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 04:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony Sebastian]] | [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|Talk]]
:Milton, I have a few deadlines related to academic year ending. I took a look at [[Project Apollo]] and will plan to work on it starting sometime in July, though the start of the academic year also puts demands on me.


==water==
:Thanks for steering me in the article's direction. The Apollo missions were incredible achievements.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 14:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
[[Image:water_molecule_dimensions.jpg]]


::Anthony, thanks for your added references and edits as well as for picking up my goof in defining "billion". [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 21:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony Sebastian]]
== Redirect of Biological mathematics ==


[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony Sebastian|(Talk)]] 23:24, 28 January 2007 (CST)
Hi Anthony:
I've moved the article [[Biological mathematics]] to [[Biological computation]], which seems to me to fit the content of this article pretty well. Please excuse my doing this before your have had a chance to comment upon it. I don't think it is a very controversial change, but it may be a bit startling to find what has happened in your absence. If so, my apologies. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 18:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User Talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]]
== Electric charge ==


doi:10.1016/S0968-0004(00)88952-5
Anthony: If you take a look at [[Talk:Electric_charge#Definition_of_electric_charge]] you will see that while technically you are right that the article [[Electric charge]] should begin with a definition of ''electric'' charge, that approach is awkward, and the simple change you have made in the lead sentence of this article does not solve the problem.


http://base.google.com/base/a/1525701/D4341995594414253957
There seems to me to be two possibilities: the one you object to that begins by defining charge and then defines electric charge and how it is distinct from magnetic charge. Alternatively, one can make a new article [[Charge]], describing ''a fundamental property of [[matter]] that causes matter having that property to generate and react to a [[force]] of attraction or repulsion to spatially separate matter that likewise manifests the property of charge.''


==Horizontal gene transfer==
Then one can refer to this article in the article [[Electric charge]] as ''one of the two known types of charge, ''magnetic'' and ''electric'', with the distinguishing property that electric charges can be isolated, while while an isolated magnetic charge or [[magnetic monopole]] never has been observed.''
Anthony, please look at
[http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer  HGT]


and give an opinion on its approval worthiness please in the talk page  [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 07:15, 15 January 2007 (CST)
In any event, I find the present arrangement unsatisfactory. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 04:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


==Copyright data?==
Apparently the matter is complicated further by the concept of [http://books.google.com/books?id=3AJdTYu3m5sC&pg=PA190&dq=%22magnetic+charge%22+elementary+particle+%22color+charge%22&hl=en&ei=Bp1GTu69GrLYiALzxIzBAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22magnetic%20charge%22%20elementary%20particle%20%22color%20charge%22&f=false "color charge"]. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 15:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


Hi Dr. Sebastian, may I ask you please to add some copyright information (is this your image?) here: http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Image:Sysbiolpubsyear.jpg&action=edit
:Also complicated by [[mass]]: "In physics, mass is an extensive physical property of a system and is most frequently measured in the SI unit of kilograms. Mass is the "charge" of the gravitational force, and the resistance an object has to force."  From CZ article.


Thanks!
:I like the idea of dealing with 'charge' in a separate article, [[Charge]].  I too was thinking of that, but I did not feel qualified to do it justice.  I suppose we could start it as a stub, with the lede sentence you suggested.  I give it a try, unless you really want to do it yourself.  I'm away Sunday, could do it Monday.


--[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:30, 22 January 2007 (CST)
:At any rate, in [[Electric charge]], I had wanted the reader to know a bit more about electric charge before introducing magnetic charge, or charge in general.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 04:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
::A [[User:John R. Brews/Sample|start]] at an article. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 05:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
::The treatment of color charge and its connection to nuclear forces needs work. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 14:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
::I set up a talk page to consider how this article should be written at [[User:John R. Brews/Sample/Talk]]. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 16:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


Larry--
:Anthony: Perhaps a god approach to [[Charge]] is to make it a disambiguation page. There are so many different "charges" even within science that it seems they are almost unconnected. For example, [[Charge (electromagnetic)]] could include both electric and magnetic charge, replacing the present [[Electric charge]]. [[Charge (chromodynamic)]] could discuss color charge. Then we are left with [[Charge (baryonic)]], [[Charge (leptonic)]], which appear to be different in that they are not related to forces at all, but to symmetry classifications. Maybe you have some more?


*I created the file from a public database. See Talk page for Image:sysbiolpubsyear3.jpg for details.
:Although mass is related to the force of gravity by the same potential theory as electromagnetism ''via'' [[Coulomb's_law#Poisson_equation|Poisson's equation]], it is not referred to as a "charge" in physics texts (a Google books search does not turn up this terminology, despite its use in the CZ article [[Mass]]), and is ultimately related to the curvature of space time, a form of "fictitious" force depending upon the observer like centrifugal force.  


==dead link and question about your forum comment on recruiting==
:The disambiguation page would have to include non-science versions too, of course, like [[Charge (military)]], [[Charge (explosive)]]. Maybe you have some more? [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 14:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, your systems biology link is a dead link on your user page.  It might need a redirect.  Also, I remember a while ago on the forums, you suggested a recruitment email template for recruiting professors - has anything come of this?  Disregard if I have mistaken you for someone else with this suggestion. [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 20:29, 28 January 2007 (CST)
==Re consciousness.==
I'm very amateurish on this and only read Steve Pinker and a few others as a pastime. But i think its an important content opportunity and you should lead the way.Thanks for the note. It seems us biologists have quite catholick private reading lives [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 22:26, 29 January 2007 (CST)


==montage==
::John, it appears we already have [[Charge]] as a disambiguation page, automatically redirected from [[Charge]].  It currently has three entries:
[[Image:Montage2.jpg|right]]
Hey, Anthony, is this the sort of thing you had in mind? [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 01:23, 31 January 2007 (CST)


*Chris, yes. Cool. Very nice. Do you make the montage's in PhotoShop?
{{r|Charge (electricity)}} (that is just a lemma)
*I know we can upload jpegs.  Can we download uploaded ones for editing?  Not that I want to edit your neat one, but for future reference.
{{r|Charge (management)}}
--[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony Sebastian|(Talk)]] 10:30, 31 January 2007 (CST)
{{r|Charge (retail)}}


==recruitment letter==
::I would prefer separate articles on [[Charge (science)]], [[Electric charge]], [[Magnetic charge]] plus the ones you suggested: [[Charge (chromodynamic)]] [[Charge (baryonic)]], [[Charge (leptonic)]], [[Charge (military)]], [[Charge (explosive)]], [[Charge business]], [[Chargés d'affaires]], etc.
could you help me with this? http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/Citizendium_Pilot:Recruitment_Letter#Version_2_for_Biological_.2F_Health_Sciences
[[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 23:45, 31 January 2007 (CST)


::By [[Charge (science)]], I refer to the Sample article you started.


==Life==
::I do not ignore your [[Charge (electrodynamic)]], but in the interests of the readers, separate articles on electric and magnetic charges would seem better, as each deserves it own treatment in order to do it justice and teach the unique aspects of each. &mdash;[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 21:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I will be glad to check in . Good to see progress there [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 15:56, 13 February 2007 (CST)


==Users with Same name, without the dot Anthony(.)Sebastain==
== Your introductory charge article ==
Noted another user and assume this is a stolen identity or mistake or similar. I will delete the files for security Constable [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 15:56, 13 February 2007 (CST)


Hi Anthony:


There still some user name confusions around user name Sebastian. We need to work more to finish this , Probably involving me moveing this page  back to an initial location account. Continue discussion on this at my talk page as that hasn't been moved around like yours  Ill repeat this note at your second talk page Constable [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 17:30, 13 February 2007 (CST)
As you know, there are several ways to introduce a subject. One is to present the current understanding from a logical standpoint supported by today's experimental data. That method depends upon an abstract turn of mind that enjoys an axiomatic approach, related by experiments to reality. These concepts and data are not necessarily naively intuitive.  


Perhaps mre accurately there are no other users active but ther is another Talk user page active
Another approach is historical. That method begins in the past and works to the present. Its goal is not to be historically accurate in explaining all the false steps and all the confusions of the historical record. Rather, the goal is to adopt the naive view of each epoch and show how that sharpened and evolved with advances in argument and experimental data. This method is helpful to beginners, because the early work has the same naivete as the readers themselves, and so they can advance in understandable steps toward the less intuitive, more involved, present view.


I'd recommend the last approach to you. There is no point in trying to present a simplified approach based strictly upon concepts from an early time that are now outmoded. Instead, any overly simple concepts are presented as the tentative approach peculiar to a certain epoch, expected to be transcended, and are not presented as a logical structure still considered appropriate. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 16:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


This is where your (Talk button) on your 4 ~ signature leads http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthony_Sebastian  [http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthony_Sebastian][[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 17:55, 13 February 2007 (CST)
In particular, the concept of "matter" is treacherous, and has evolved considerably over time. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 16:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


To elaborate a bit: the Greek idea of ''atoms'' became the indestructible ''atoms'' of the 19th century, then were replaced by indivisible electrons, protons and neutrons, then replaced by the indivisible quarks and leptons and the bosons they exchange (or maybe only the gluons, as photons aren't included; the contributions to matter are a bit fuzzy). At each stage, matter took on a new definition, allowing a wider and wider range of forms of matter, for example, the [http://books.google.com/books?id=1WPV0NSenZ4C&pg=PA2&dq=transition+from+states+of+strongly+interacting+matter&hl=en&ei=wDFVToCuDYXPiALbrN3wDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=transition%20from%20states%20of%20strongly%20interacting%20matter&f=false quark-gluon plasma], which can't even be defined from the view of matter as an assembly of atoms. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 16:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


BUT Not here http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthony.Sebastian
:John, thanks for your advice on how to approach a 'student level' treatment of [[electric charge]]. I think both approaches you described have their pedagogical merits. I'd like to find a coherent way to include both approaches.


  [http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthony.Sebastian] [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 17:56, 13 February 2007 (CST)
:I'd wanted to develop a complete draft of the 'student level' subpage before presenting it, not wanting to waste your time. But your helpful comments show your interest, so I'm inclined to seek your comments as I develop the draft. My earliest notes you can read at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Anthony.Sebastian/Sbox01.  They are quite embryonic.


To reiterate, there is no hurry to fix this but we should try an d remove the glitch [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 18:00, 13 February 2007 (CST)
:My thought is to start somewhat oversimplified, then introduce the complexities later. First an introduction based on the basics of our modern understanding, then, in a separate section, an historical account along the lines you mentioned above.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 23:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
::Anthony: The outline at [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Anthony.Sebastian/Sbox01 your sandbox] is at a pretty early stage. At the moment it seems to aim at some ideas that lead to Coulomb's law, expressed in words. It is not necessary to base matters upon atoms, electrons and protons to do that, and historically that was not the path. As you know, electricity began with charged objects like rubbed amber, and the inverse square law was established by Cavendish and Coulomb without reference to atoms. Atomic concepts have their own subtle history in chemistry and are themselves much more complex concepts than the notion of electric charge. Possibly, after charge is established as a notion, it can be applied to atoms, if that seems desirable. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 14:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


:::John, here's how I see my starting aim: to explain electric charge in today's science, at a level of explanation accessible to an educated general audience, assuming that their knowledge includes no more than a secondary-school level of knowledge of science, including that matter consists of atoms and that atoms consist of protons, neutrons, and electrons in the solar system (Bohr) model. In between textbook and popscibook, closer to textbook.


Anthony, did you get your signature fixed? It should be simople to solve by going to preferences and cut n' paste the following into your Nickname box and remember to check the raw signatures box:
:::I agree that knowing the history of the development of the concept of electric charge importantly enriches one's grasp of the concept, but as the starter for a student-level treatment of electric charge, I personally find it better first to help the student acquire/enhance some grasp of the basic concept. Anyway, that's how it works for me as I try to increase my knowledge of physics and chemistry&mdash;and without having to know/learn advanced mathematics, I might add (no pun intended).
:: <nowiki>[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]]</nowiki>
that should look like the following after signing with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>
:: [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]]
I think this will work.  My guess is that there is currently a typo in there.  [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 15:32, 14 February 2007 (CST)


:::Ideally, I would hope to integrate the two approaches into a single woven narrative.  I see the project taking months  to accomplish, given the time I can devote.  In the end, I'd like to see positive responses from secondary-school students taking an academic curriculum.


==Biology/Draft==
:::I can't express how satisfying it is for me to have your input helping me organize consciously my thinking. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 22:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
There are some recent changes suggested at Biology/Draft about Anatomy versus Morphology (favouring Morphology). As far as I'm concerned its a minor issue either way, but the proponent is insistent, and I don't see why they cannot be included, unless they make confusion elsewhere. Have you any advice before another Approved version of Biology goes through? The is extensive discussion at the non-draft talk page. [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 01:03, 20 February 2007 (CST)


==Life==
== Boxed comments in your articles ==
The opening works much better I think, now. cheers d [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 17:36, 1 March 2007 (CST)


Hi Anthony:
Your recently amended contribution [[Herophilus]] contains some very long boxed instructions for the novice reader of CZ (or any other wiki for that matter). In the article [[Vesalius]] I trimmed this boxed content without encountering objections from you (thank you), but your article [[Herophilus]] possibly has extended this text beyond even what was originally in [[Vesalius]]. Here is what I refer to:
{|cellpadding=10 align=center style="width:80%; border: solid 1px #4682b4; background:lightblue"
|
''Most citations to articles listed here include links &mdash; in font-color <font color="blue"> blue</font> &mdash; to full-text.  Accessing full-text may require personal or institutional subscription.  Nevertheless, many with do offer full-text, and if not, usually offer text or links that show the abstracts of the articles, free without subscription.  Links to books variously may open to full-text, or to the publishers' description of the book with or without downloadable selected chapters, reviews, and table of contents.  Books with links to Google Books often offer extensive previews of the books' text.
|}
and here is my trimmed version:
{|cellpadding=10 align=center style="width:80%; font-size: 85%; border: solid 1px #4682b4; background:papayawhip;"
|
<font face="Gill Sans MT">Many citations here include <font color="darkblue"> blue links</font> that open variously to full-text or to a publisher's description of the work. Links to [[Google#Google_books|Google books]] often offer an extensive preview of the text.</font>
|}
Of course, I am not a novice reader of CZ or WP, and what is said in these boxes is of no interest to me at all. Hence, I might be expected to find this boxed information a distraction.


==Scientific Method==
Although I cannot put myself in the frame of mind of someone reading [[Herophilus]] as my first ever encounter with a wiki article, my best imagining of this situation is that it is overkill even for such a novice. More than that, thinking of the average reader, I suspect very few will encounter [[Herophilus]] as their very first article.
Many thanks Anthony. Indeed last night I was thinking that the human genome project and systems biology have not been accomodated as afar as I know into any revision of philosophical accounts of the scientific method. Thanks for expressing that so eruditely.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 03:08, 7 March 2007 (CST)


:Gareth, I should have said how much I admired your way of putting the [[Scientific method]] article together. Scholarly, and written with coherence, grace and style.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 21:49, 7 March 2007 (CST)
Probably (IMO of course) general observations of this kind are better placed in some kind of "Advice to the Novice" article along the lines of Google's [http://www.google.com/help/features.html tips for effective search]. You will notice that Google does not include this kind of instruction on its primary search page. If it were thought helpful, a link to the "Aid to Novices" instruction article could replace the boxed instructions you are wont to include in every article.


Maybe you would reconsider your approach to boxed guidance to the uninitiated? [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 16:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


Many thanks Anthony. Thanks for explaining so carefully your style preferences, and I will do my best to respect them when I edit on your articles. Obviously some of my own preferences are different _ like you I prefer generally to avoid the passive voice, but sometimes I think it is more natural to use that than constructions that seem (to my ears) contrived to avoid it - so I avoid using "one" as a subject for example. However, I think it is valuable for articles each to have its own distinctive literary style, and please never hesitate to revert any stylistic (or other) changes that I make, please treat my edits simply as suggestions to be considered and discarded and don't feel you need to explain that to me; I will take it for granted that you have treated my suggestions with all due respect.  
:John, I agree that the boxed information note not necessary for most readers. I removed it from [[Herophilus]], and will eliminate it from other articles as they turn up.
Warmest regards[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 04:50, 10 March 2007 (CST)


:Gareth: Collaboration, a many wondrous thing.  In saying that, I speak of two separate experiences, the experience of 'collaborating'--with you, a fruitful and enjoyable one--and the experience of 'wondrousness'. When I say 'collaboration is a many wondrous thing' I feel as if I speak not for myself but simply repeat what a reality saysThat may make no sense to you, but technically the two locutions distinguish two major language groups, the apodictic languages and the dispositional languages. Indo-European and certain Asian languages. With the dispositional approach I feel I speak for myself, the author.
:I appreciate your interest in the articles I'm working on, and grateful for what I'm learning from you. Sometimes I'm a little overzealous in spoon-feeding readers. I like your idea re link to [[Advice for New Readers]] article[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 03:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


:Thank you for the generous editorial license, which I intend to avail myself of 'with all due respect'.  As I said in my earlier comments to you, I eschew the purist's fanaticism.
::Anthony: I'd say you're eminently qualified to write an [[Advice for New Readers]] page. It could include the content of your text box, and a few more things too, like finding the [[CZ: xxx]] pages identified at [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Home CZ:Home] and what's in the left-column links. This new article should be linked among these left-column links and made a CZ: xxx page. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 14:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


:I agree with you about the passive voice having its place. In fact, if the reader doesn't definitely need to know who/what does the action of the verb, if the passive moves the reader more smoothly from the previous sentence, and if it gives the reader a more consistent point of view (e.g., the scientist's vs. the biological system's)--then I'd go for the passive. No law against it. But those provisos all requirement judgment, and for that two heads often do better than one.
:::Thanks for the compliment, John. First, I've got find where my clone disappeared. Or, I've got to get my time-stopping machine working. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 03:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


:I too find that, in trying to avoid use of the passive as a non-reflective automatic, the results sometime seem contrived. I take that as a challenge, to exploit the power of the active voice without rendering it seemingly contrived. I consider myself in the 'practice' stage, with dictionary online at hand, hunting for those arresting active verbs.
== Change of figure ==
:And warmest regards in return --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 15:22, 10 March 2007 (CST)


== biobooks6.jpg ==
Anthony: I replaced this figure of yours:
{{Image|Vesalius-harvey-malpighi-timeline.jpg|center|5000px}}
with this one:
{{Image|Vesalius-Harvey-Malpighi.png|center|400px}}
which compresses the horizontal scale allowing a narrower display on a laptop screen. It also uses the same years at each tick in each panel, and an interval of 20 years in all the panels, which makes it easier to read the lifetimes from the scales, and lines up the scales in each panel so the same years are vertically above one another.


see [[Talk:Life]], I just added that picture there. What is the problem, I may help. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;<span style="background:black">&nbsp;<font color="red"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font>&nbsp;</span> 23:03, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
I hope these changes find favor. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 16:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


== restore LIFE ==
:Nicely done, John.  I was never too happy with my original, and had it on my list to redo, plus add a caption describing the anatomy-to-physiology-to-microscopic anatomy sequence represented by those three fellows in the history of medicine.  Also you remind me, unintentionally, to get back to the Harvey and Malpighi articles.


Mr. Sebastian,
:BTW, what program did you use to make the image?  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 02:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
restoration would be simple, however due to the content I would prefer Gareth doing it. I can however go back to the last saved page before Mr. Quick did editting. Let me know what it is you need. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;<span style="background:black">&nbsp;<font color="red"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font>&nbsp;</span> 17:10, 23 March 2007 (CDT)


:Robert: Thanks. I may ask you to do that but will wait to see if Gareth agrees that Joe Quick's first entry into the [[Life]] project was not appropriate or article-improving.  BTW: Everyone on CZ calls me Anthony. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 19:05, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
::Anthony: Glad you liked this. It was made using Microsoft Excel 2010 and saving the result with Microsoft Paint. Excel 2007 was OK for this too, but the earlier Excel versions are more restricted in their choices of colors and shadings. You might be able to do the same using Word instead of Excel. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 05:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
And I go by the name Rob :) [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;<span style="background:black">&nbsp;<font color="red"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font>&nbsp;</span>


==Little boxes==
== Timeline image ==
<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="attention" style="background-color: #FFFCE6; margin: 0 20%; padding: 0 1opx; border: 1px solid #aaa;">
{{Image|Time line.JPG|right|250px|New timeline for Vesalius.}}
{{Image|Classical mechanics timeline.PNG|right|250px|Key scientists in classical mechanics.}}
Anthony, I thought your new figure looked very nice, so I tried something like that myself. See below, right.


*left edge
The issue comes up that some people don't live long enough to allow a box containing their names. I tried one "solution", color inside the name box. Do you have some other ideas?
*light blue
*selected width


--[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 14:12, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
Nice job. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 22:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
</div>


:John, thanks.  I just wanted to do a test, not to supplant your fine figure in [[Vesalius]], rather thinking of future articles.


{|align="left" style="background-color:lightblue; width:80%; border: 1px solid #aaa;"
:Re the short-lived notables:
|
 
*'''left edge''' use align="left" can also use ''center'' or ''right''.
:*adjust width of timeline to accommodate non-fitters
*'''light blue''change to background-color:lightblue
:*reduce font-size as needed; shouldn't jar too much
*'''selected width''' can use either percent (with respect to screen width) or pixelsEither width="80%" (as this example, note it adjusts size as browser window changes) or width=600 for fixed size of 600 pixels in all broswers (regardless of the window size).
:*color in box, but leave off box border; might need caption note
 
:All I can think of.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 03:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 
::Hi Anthony: I tried out your suggestions and settled upon the last one: image here is updated.
::Thank you. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 11:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 
:::Looks great, John. Go for it.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 18:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 
== [[Chemical elements]] ==
 
See my note at [[Talk:Periodic_table_of_elements#Official_names]]. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 10:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 
== Language Evolution ==
 
Hi Anthony, there is a discussion over at [[Talk:Language Evolution (book synopsis)|this page]] about a potential move for this article. Could you take a look? [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 12:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 
:Hi Anthony, there are more comments over at this article, but before you look may I make a suggestion.
 
:Since this article is the only one on Citizendium with "synopsis" in the title, how about I move the article to Language Evolution (book) and attempt to write a short introduction about the book, followed by all the text that is currently there. I think that may solve any issues. What do you think? [[User:David Finn|David Finn]] 12:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 
::Yes. I regretted 'synopsis' almost from the beginning, but was somewhat intimidated by the 'move' procedure, though I've done it now a few times.  Thanks for your help and comments.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 14:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 
== Query about Vesalius ==
 
Anthony: I do not have access to the book you use as source for the idea that Vesalius succeeded where Galen did not because of the more liberal access to cadavers in Vesalius time. See my [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Vesalius#Official_OK_for_dissection inquiry about this matter]. It appears likely that there was a reduced restriction in Vesalius' time. One might consider that Galen might have succeeded too in Vesalius' place, but the way this is stated suggests that it was a piece of cake for Vesalius because of the reduced restrictions.
 
There is also a lot of literature including some of very recent date that take the view that censorship was a problem for Vesalius. I have found it hard to determine whether what we have here is simply the repeating of tales heard at a mother's knee, or something more accurate.
 
Can you help? [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 19:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 
:Will review this matter, John.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 05:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 
== Randomized control trial ==
 
Anthony, you have supported the re-approval of [[Randomized controlled trial]]. According to the new approval process you should do so with a (short) referee's report on the [[Randomized controlled trial/Approval|approval page]]. Then the Approval Manager (Joe) can accept and certify the approval. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 12:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 
:Done. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 20:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 
== Leibniz alert ==
Greetings Anthony. Just alerting you that being an admirer of Leibniz I will most certainly add substantial content to the Leibniz page. My contribution would most likely be limited to philosophical topics in Leibniz since his writings are so far-flung and given that I am no mathematician and could not do justice to those areas of his thought. :]
 
:Maria, Leibniz can use all the help he gets.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 03:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 
== Move ==
 
Hello, Anthony, I've just noticed your request to Matt, who hasn't been around recently. To Move an article, just click on the Move tab at the top of the page and follow the instructions. HTH. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 01:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 
: Ro, you did not notice that it is an approved article that is protected against edits -- and moves. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 02:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 
:::Ah, no, I didn't go to the page. Anyway, all's well... [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 13:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 
::I'm here! I moved all of your pages (I hope).  The 'move all subpages' feature did not work this time, so I had to move them by hand and delete the redirects.  Double check me, especially making sure that I moved all the subpages, and let me know if I missed anything (I don't do it often enough to remember it myself!).
 
::I am always around, especially if you leave a message on my talk page, because it emails me (which I check most often throughout the day). [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 03:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 
:::Thanks, Matt. I checked; everything copacetic. Sorry you had to do everything in separate steps. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 14:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 
== Thanks for the Lactation article edits ==
Anthony thanks so much for the lactation article edits. Sure do appreciate the help and collaboration. Been a long time since my biology classes so I hope I remembered everything right. What got me to thinking about this subject as there was a recent "nurse in" after a woman was asked to nurse in a fitting room. At least that's what the news report state. At Amazon there's been a heated discussion about nursing in public which lead to me thinking which lead to this article. Thanks again! [[User:Mary Ash|Mary Ash]] 05:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 
:Mary, a good article for CZ. Many aspects of interest, both from the social and natural sciences.  Thanks for getting it started.
 
:My interest gravitates toward the metabolism/physiology aspects, an evolutionary perspective.
 
:Regarding breastfeeding in public, I remember Milton Berl's joke about a woman walking down the street unaware she had one breast exposed.  When Berl called her attention to it, she responded shocked and horrified, "Oh my God. I left my baby on the bus."
 
:[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 17:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 
== ASIMO approval ==
 
Hello. Do you think it would be okay to ask [[User:Daniel M. Lofaro]] who helped with [[HUBO]]'s approval to see if everything is all right with the article, and then have an engineering editor approve the article? I think Daniel is fit to be an editor in robotics. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 06:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC))
 
:Hello. I was wondering why ASIMO article has not been approved yet despite the notice which says it will be approved on March 1. I think the article is eady for approval now. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 11:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC))
 
== Re-approval of [[Boiling point/Draft]] ==
 
Tony, please see the last section that I just posted on the Talk page of the subject article. It is in regard to how long this is taking and the lack of any truly expert comments. Best regards, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 19:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 
:Milton, I tried to nominate it for approval yesterday, but had problems with getting the ToApprove notice up.  I asked Peter Schmitt for help, as I am not completely familiar with the approval mechanics yet.  Awaiting his reply.
 
:The changes made since I first commented on the article satisfy my concerns. &mdash;[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 20:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 
::Thanks, Tony. I will wait. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 21:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 
:::I have added an image of a boiling point diagram into the last section of [[Boiling point/Draft]] for approval, where such a diagram is mentioned. Milton Beychok approves of this addition to the article as evidenced on my Talk page [[User talk:Henry A. Padleckas]] at the current bottom of the page.  Can you please approve with the added diagram?  Thank you.  [[User:Henry A. Padleckas|Henry A. Padleckas]] 08:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 
::::Tony, I am perfectly okay with Henry's diagram. Last night, I said that I was in agreement with including it in the current re-approval (see the "Approval mechanics" section of Talk:Boiling point/Draft) and I urged him to contact you as soon as he could, which he did. Milton Beychok 03:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 
== Regarding the article about Canadian vs. American copyright law and its author Patrick Nikulak.  ==
 
Tony, when I was an Editorial Personnel Administrator, I saw this happen a number of times. Someone would join CZ and write an article (or sometimes 2-3 articles) and then disappear completely ... making it obvious that he/she had joined us with an agenda to write about some pet subject.
 
According to Patrick's "User Contributions", on March 13th he wrote his article about Canadian copyright law and then he disappeared completely for the next two weeks. I doubt that we will ever hear from him again.
 
'''I strongly suggest that the Approval process for his article be completely abandoned and removed from the green banner we all see at the top of our watchlists'''. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 15:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 
:Milton, I agree.  Completely.  Thanks for keeping surveillance.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 23:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 
==About [[Air Resources Laboratory]]==
 
Hi, Tony: Based on your comments on my Talk page about the [[Air Resources Laboratory]] (ARL) article, I have now:
*fixed all of the references and updated them,
*added a new section entitled "Organization" along with a diagram of the organizational structure,
* and added a "Gallery" subpage with 7 images (photos and a diagram) of the types of equipment used by NOAA and the ARL.
 
I just wanted to let you know that your comments prodded me into improving the article somewhat ... although I still don't believe it is worthy of Approval. Thanks, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 05:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 
:Hi, Milton.  I shall prod again, then, until you improve it to Approval eligibility, unless you tell me that to accomplish that would take enormous amount of work.  It only has to be accurate, informative, heuristic, remember, not exhaustive or even comprehensive (both of which will always fall short of their ideal).
 
:CZ needs more Approved articles.
 
:Though, I would not be surprised to learn I am CZ's biggest sinner of not finishing articles started. I absolve myself with the thought that when the experts come flooding in they'll get working on them, and the thought that I've let my curiosity-birthright, a type of attention-deficit phenomenon, though more mature than my toddler days, predominate over my peak capacity to focus and concentrate my efforts. Of course I did plenty of that focusing bit for 50 years.
 
:I find it difficult to put articles I contributed into Approval consideration because I realize I can improve it if I work on it more. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 20:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 
== [[Economics]] ==
 
A day late but I got it done! [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 00:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 
:Thanks, Matt, againIt does not need same-day processing. I'm sure you have many things to do on your list. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 03:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 
== Op-Ed in the ''NY Times'' ==
 
Hi Anthony:
 
You may recall our efforts with [[Reality]] and Hawking's and Mlodinow's  book. The Sunday ''NY Times'' has an op-ed piece by Jim Holt in his column ''Gray Matter'' called [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/opinion/sunday/what-physics-learns-from-philosophy.html "Physicists, stop the churlishness"] that covers some of this topic. He mentions attitudes by Penrose, Feynman, and a recent battle between David Albert and Lawrence Krauss (the mystery of the universe's existence).
 
Maybe there is something here that could improve [[Reality]]? [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 15:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 
== Draft decision on Approval process ==
 
Hi Anthony: I am presently unclear about where things stand regarding [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Managing_Editor/2012/004_-_Approval_of_Editor-authored_articles_when_no_appropriate_nominating_Editors_available the approval draft decision]. Has it been shelved? Is a replacement under consideration? What is your present understanding of the process and its value? [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 19:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 
 
:John: It has not been shelved. I am preparing a note to Peter Schmitt with my understanding of the Approval Process. If a replacement emerges it will emerge from that, and Peter's responses.
 
:As to the value of having Approved Articles, that's a separate issue, which I will discuss separately.
 
:As for your many fine draft articles, we need to consider them and see we can do to give them a chance to be approved.  I have been musing over that already. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 20:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 
== Free will ==
 
Anthony:
I think you might have some interest in the article [[Free will]]. I have made a number of changes there, but it remains unsatisfactory. Perhaps you could assist? [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 15:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 
:John: Thanks for the invitation.  Too tempting to resist, both the topic and the opportunity to colloquy with you.
 
:What you've done has much improved the discussion of the issues involved, including some astute explication (e.g., how randomness doesn't help the cause of the "free willists"). We presumably have no control over when and how the atoms 'swerve'.
 
:Perhaps as Dennett says, we have some elbow room, that there are varieties of free will worth having. And from a sophisticated evolutionary perspective, what follows?  Free will, or not, aren't we dealing with biology, and is it not true that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", though the light needed may be outside the visible band of the spectrum.
 
:The role of speech?
 
:I'll review my key books before digging in.  —[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 21:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


Anthony, There are many other parameters too but these few are a good place to start. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 14:41, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
::Anthony:
|}
::I look forward to your contributions. After my experience with this article, I am inclined to understand the human as a form of intelligent robot, and understand consciousness as command center that focuses on narrow slices of observed data to illuminate particular issues as they arise, and directs action based upon optimization routines it has learned during its evolution and fleshes out during its lifetime. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 15:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


:::John:


:::I, too, view humans as "intelligent robots", but I conceive the "command center" residing in the unconscious, where some 98% of human thinking occurs, continually sending instructions to the conscious mind, which interprets them as its own conscious rational decisions. Keith Stanovich has written many books/articles about that.  My favorite:


::::[http://books.google.com/books?id=gib3SwqcH8AC&dq=stanovich&source=gbs_navlinks_s The Robot's Rebellion: Finding Meaning in the Age of Darwin].
::::Keith E. Stanovich


::::University of Chicago Press, Oct 15, 2005 - Philosophy - 374 pages


::::"The idea that we might be robots is no longer the stuff of science fiction; decades of research in evolutionary biology and cognitive science have led many esteemed thinkers and scientists to the conclusion that, following the precepts of universal Darwinism, humans are merely the hosts for two replicators (genes and memes) that have no interest in us except as conduits for replication. Accepting and now forcefully responding to this disturbing idea that precludes the possibilities of morality or free will, among other things, Keith Stanovich here provides the tools for the "robot's rebellion," a program of cognitive reform necessary to advance human interests over the limited interest of the replicators. He shows how concepts of rational thinking from cognitive science interact with the logic of evolution to create opportunities for humans to structure their behavior to serve their own ends. These evaluative activities of the brain, he argues, fulfill the need that we have to ascribe significance to human life. Only by recognizing ourselves as robots, argues Stanovich, can we begin to construct a concept of self based on what is truly singular about humans: that they gain control of their lives in a way unique among life forms on Earth—through rational self-determination."


::::Daniel Hahneman speaks to that also, in [[Thinking, fast and slow]].


::::Other books: "Incognito", "Who's in Charge?" [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 16:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


Hi Anthony: I'll have to look into these books which are unfamiliar to me. It seems clear that the unconscious mind does a lot of processing, maybe analogous to the eye which also does a lot of processing the conscious mind is not aware of, including narrow-band filtering and statistical analysis, apparently providing a subset of information determined useful by evolutionary events and sufficiently concise that the conscious mind can handle. So what is the role of consciousness then? Is there some need for oversight, to weight various alternative long-time responses and select the best? The weighting mechanism itself is subject to development and evolution, but perhaps with the aid of society and reflection it can guide its program of development to a degree? Maybe I'll glean some answers from the reading you have suggested. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 16:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
:Anthony: I've added a number of links to the [[Free_will/External_Links#Links_to_The_Stanford_Encyclopedia_of_Philosophy_:|The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]. The article contains references to robot intelligence and to complementarity that are missing from most discussions, so its got something to add to the subject. Animal behavior and Darwinism also should be discussed more.  As one might anticipate for a topic that has survived for millenia, [[Free will]] is complex and the present article still is a shambles. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 16:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


::John, I haven't had time yet to join in, but I have started re-reading Gazzaniga's ''Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain'', at bedtime, on my Kindle. Very impressive. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 03:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
:::Anthony: I am happy that you are still planning to attack this topic. I have not read Gazzaniga except for excerpts. I also read [http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=free-will-and-the-brain-michael-gazzaniga-interview&page=1 this interview] which introduces the "emergent mind" concept. I am left feeling that there is a confusion here between microscopic description (like on a quantum scale) and a more macroscopic description that is given some mystical precedence.  The description of chemistry on the basis of the [[Standard model]] is perhaps possible in principle, but no-one would attempt it, with some chemistry described using atomic models and some using even larger objects (like DNA). What is happening is easier to grasp using one model than another, but that is an expression of the mind's limitations, not that the underlying phenomena have found a deeper explanation with the higher level models. So the problem of free will remains murky, although it's clear that it isn't completely free. If we can show that consciousness is a hardware related function of complex networks that is coincident with feelings of being able to make a decision, I think we still will have the issue of deciding whether ant hills are forever to be subject to chance encounters with anteaters unless accidental discovery programs a solution, or can the hill actually make decisions that evolve defenses? Can education improve society, or is that another delusion? Is all we do is to repeat the past until some monkey types Shakespeare whereupon we can progress?
:::I am reminded that scientists are thought of by the general public as odd balls (which they are) and their discoveries are looked upon as the serendipitous results of crazy people that actually come up with something once and a while, largely as a the result of their odd natures leading them into crevices where normal people don't look. Scientists don't decide to become scientists; they are born that way, and sometimes actually find a niche in which to do science. These niches may be created by society, but niche creation is programmed into society in the same way as the birth of the scientists themselves is programmed?  [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 04:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


::::John, should we move this section to [[Free will|Free will's]] Talk page? That might attract other interested parties. I don't feel committed to that, however.


::::I think it will take a society more informed than we are today before our conscious thinking&mdash;<5% of our total thinking&mdash;recognizes deeply the illusion of free will. I have not received a memo from my non-conscious thinking committee with anything enlightening. If I once had free will, my wife preempted it 48 years ago. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 19:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


I also hope that much will be learned if we survive long enough. What I'd like to understand is how one can function like the Stoics, sure in the belief that all is preordained, and yet simultaneously find value in a moral imperative to think through one's decisions.


I'd like to draw your attention to the [http://www.charlierose.com/view/collection/10702 Charlie Rose brain series Part II].


Let's defer using the [[Talk:Free will|Talk page]] until we can discuss the article content. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 21:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


==Approval==
====Emergence====
As an editor in biology, I'd support an approval tag with a 1 to 2 week deadline.
I've run across a discussion of ''emergence'' [http://unisi.academia.edu/NicolaSimonetti/Papers/1606372/NEUROSCIENCE_AND_PHILOSOPHY_OF_MIND here], a concept that apparently originates with Kim ([http://books.google.com/books?id=WBirsKOsf20C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Mind+in+a+Physical+World&source=bl&ots=SJg5xduj-g&sig=xOVnR-9UT_RMn0Ue4OKdOFbmXkc&hl=en&src=bmrr&sa=X&ei=R785UMHHOKHwiwL-3oHwBA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Mind%20in%20a%20Physical%20World&f=false ''Mind in a Physical World'' 1998] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=RNOxMSiUmUkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Physicalism,+or+Something+near+enough&source=bl&ots=oL7EPAzY1w&sig=gfutbUmpY-yDmVnd7u3KSD48bWo&hl=en&src=bmrr&sa=X&ei=FL85UL25D4zQigKAzoCQCQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Physicalism%2C%20or%20Something%20near%20enough&f=false ''Physicalism, or something near enough''] 2005). The argument is, for example, "a neural assembly consisting of many thousands of neurons will have properties whose causal powers go beyond the causal powers of the properties of its constituents neurons, or subassemblies, and human beings have causal powers that none of our individual organs have". This may be a game involving the definition of "cause". The idea seems to me to be like this: a hot gas can burn you, but the idea of "hot" doesn't apply to an individual atom, but only to an assembly of atoms, so the gas has causal powers not shared by its constituents. I think this is mistaken thinking, as the process of burning me could be analyzed at a microscopic level in terms of individual atoms without introducing the ideas of heat or temperature that apply to ensembles of atoms. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 06:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


My major suggestion is that the synthesis of perspectives should be introduced very early (with a different title), not at the end. My argument is that this is journalism, not a scientific manuscript. Readers need to find their take home message, simple version, quickly, IMHO. Your diagrams are wonderful, and the whole article is well done, I think. [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 18:20, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
I was mistaken above in suggesting Kim originated the idea of emergence: he only has discussed it. My example of burning myself resembles a [http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/properties-emergent/#EpiEme claim by Popper]:  


:David: I have taken your suggestion to rearrange.  I think you are right, and it seems to work well.  Please take look, and critique.  If you think it okay, I'd appreciate your discussing with the group about the approval tag. I will continue to work on the 'images' issue (see article Talk page). --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:48, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
:"Any change in the higher level (temperature) will thus influence the lower level (the movement of the individual atoms). The one-sided dominance [of higher on lower levels of matter] is due … to the random character of the heat motions of the atoms…. For it seems that were the universe per impossible a perfect determinist clockwork, there would be no layers and therefore no such dominating influence would occur."


:: I think it works too, and Ive not got a criticism. I tried a slightly different heading too (avoiding linguistics). Change it again of course. Let me know when you found a good image outcome, and I think I'm then allowed to put an approval tag on it (as Ive done so little here). (But Ill have to re-read the rulebook to be sure. These approval decisesion are pretty tricky legal conundrums!  [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 23:11, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
Although it is rash of me to attack this position by a respected thinker, IMO Popper's remarks reflect a complete misunderstanding of the role of statistics in describing events. Statistical averages like temperature may characterize ensembles, but they do not cause anything. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 16:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


:::David, I'm okay with your heading change. I'd like to stick with the current image on top until something better comes along. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 23:14, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
Here is a clear (but IMO, completely crazy) statement of emergence:
:"Emergent laws are fundamental; they are irreducible to laws characterizing properties at lower levels of complexity, even given ideal information as to boundary conditions." [http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/properties-emergent/#OntEme Stanford Encyclopedia].


== Sage advice on writing CZ articles ==
I bring all this up because it seems pertinent to your reading of ''The Robot's Rebellion''. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 16:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Anthony. I thought you might like to know: [[CZ:Sage advice on writing CZ articles]]. :-) -- [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 01:09, 31 March 2007 (CDT)


Stephen, Thanks. I'd originally posted the quotes to myself at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Anthony.Sebastian/Advice_on_writing_CZ_articles
After reading through a few of the dozens of articles on the Stanford Encyclopedia, I am left feeling that a lot of hair-splitting has been done by many philosophers to no end. The answers to this question are more likely to arise from AI and neuroscience than from abstract arguments over hypotheticals that never actually arise. From the stance of an evolutionary robot, programmed goals are sought by an algorithm modifiable by experience. The status of the algorithm may be perceptible by the robot, and the processing of information leading to reprogramming may involve activities that appear to it as conscious deliberation. It is much like a programmer watching his algorithm process some inputs, and in this case he can change the program to better achieve his goals. The ways the program can be changed depend upon some limitations of the programming language and some options may not be pursued because the programmer is so versed in Fortran that he can't think in other languages. So some changes can be made, constituting free will, but others cannot.  


I will add the additional quote.  And will use [[CZ:Sage advice on writing CZ articles]] Assume you created page.
Care to help me out here, Anthony? [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 16:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


I hope I did not miss any subtle message. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 12:55, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
After writing this I ran into a [http://books.google.com/books?id=jri3xSc9gX0C&pg=PA260 programming analogy]. "...view it as a set of capabilities and features that interconnect to form Consciousness. ...One can think of each of them as an "object" that has a specific set of capabilities and features. These objects have a "mini-program" inside them that specifies their behavior and how they hook up....The hooks are variable and dynamic.   The time evolution of the Consciousness from state to state is a result of execution of these "mini-programs' in a dynamic ever-changing way. There is no overall program but instead there is an ever changing dynamic unfolding of states of Consciousness in response to external inputs and based on the previous state of Consciousness plus random effects within Consciousness..." and so on.


:The only message was this: thanks for creating that, and feel proud it will now serve the whole community! [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 16:57, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
Some of this may not stand up to close analysis of the definitions of the terms used. Later a connection with Object-Oriented Programming is suggested.


::Thanks. I share my of collection of favorite quotes on my blog, but nobody reads it so I've lost enthusiasm.  CZ get more. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 19:54, 31 March 2007 (CDT)
Mentioned to show that something like this kind of explanation is [http://leonid-perlovsky.com/IEEE%20CI%20Culture%20-%2002mci03-perlovsky.qxd.pdf in the air]. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 19:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


::John, I emailed you the excerpt on 'emergence' in Gazzaniga's book.  I'd love to help out, but ME duties keeping me business right now. Have you looked at [[Emergence (biology)]] for my 'first draft' thoughts on 'emergence'?  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 22:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)


==Congrats and thanks==
:::Anthony: I've considerably rewritten [[Emergence (biology)]] at this juncture, and it departs significantly from its original form in introducing several ''types'' of emergence, of which ''strong emergence'' was the point of view previously, and ''weak emergence'' was not given attention.
Three editors are supporting approval the Life article that you put so much into AS. Thanks so much for the great start and your huge patience with the process. Warm regards [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 06:17, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
:::There are some "dangling chads" in the article even so. Even if one has a reductionist stance, that everything can be taken back to individual subsystem behavior ''in principle'', it seems that much of system control and numerical mathematical algorithms make use of the cooperative description of multiple levels and their interconnections and feedback to each other to obtain an efficient modeling of complex systems. So it may be moot that one could (in principle) calculate the properties of DNA based upon quarks using the [[Standard Model]], because one would never imagine that was a sensible undertaking, nor would one be able to understand the results of the calculation beyond the data spewed out as the solution to an individual problem on a case-by-case basis. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 21:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


:David, thank you so much for that feedback, for all your collaborative efforts on the article, and for teaching me many things.  I do see the article as a ''start'', and have high hopes for its evolution.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 13:01, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
==Dangling Chads==
←Hi John:
You have greatly improved [[Emergence (biology)]], in depth and scope.


==Exactly right==
I cannot discredit the use of the word, emergence, to describe properties (or qualities, functions, behaviors) of a dynamic complicated system of interacting describably distinct components when someone applies the word to behavior of the system they consider unexpected and surprising and when they had not predicted it from what they knew about the organization of the interacting components.
Just saw your new figure [[:Image:DNA_to_living_system.jpg]] and it is exactly what i was thinking of and much better resolution wise. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 22:34, 5 April 2007 (CDT)


:Thanks, Chris. Lucky find while not looking.  Used 'medium' resolution after converting to jpeg and saving in PhotoShop.  Should I increase resolution?  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:40, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
If no one can provide a satisfactory explanation for that here-to-fore unexpected behavior, that does not mean the future holds none. We do not know how long that future will extend for us. It seems, then, that we must reject propositions of systems emergent behavior as unpredictable in principle.
::My philosophy is always go with the highest available (within reason of course). In general the size shouldn't be a limiting factor and a higher resolution makes it more usable for future editors and readers. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 22:48, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
:::I browsed through your resource at DOE and found a much better version of the DNA with the books and sperm. I upgraded your picture at [[:Image:Spermeggdnabooks.jpg]], I hope this is OK with you. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 01:46, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
:::::Looks great, Chris.  How did you remix it? --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 20:23, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
::::::Photoshop. It is an attempt to connect the egg with the books in light of the legend. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 17:16, 9 April 2007 (CDT)


==Life==
In practice, from the organization of the system and that of the environment embedding it, one might generate a correct prediction of the system’s behavior as one among countless incorrect predictions, but we would not consider that a satisfactory solution.
Anthony, I saw some changes you made in Life and must condlude they do not reflect the actuality, see for the changes I will make - they are minor but chemical relevant. One is a funny typo by you (I guess) I stated physical chemistry shows carbon to have a certain chemical behavior. You turned it into allow. Chemistry only tries to describe and explain behavior it is not the reason for behavior of atoms :). There are a few more so I will use the dust comb a little. Hear your comments after I am done, cheers [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;<span style="background:black">&nbsp;<font color="white"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font>&nbsp;</span> 20:18, 7 April 2007 (CDT)


:Rob, thanks for keeping things straight.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 20:21, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
How would one have predicted the aromatic quality of benzene from the organization of its constituent atoms, whose properties differ in their organizational state than in their elementary state, and alter as we probe them?


Anthony, could you please return to life (what a thing to say on Easter Sunday!). The section that , I believe you wrote, on Information is good- but it was written when the concept of informatio was being introduced there de novo, and now the concept of information has been introduced in "The stuff of Life", could I ask you to leave the stuff of life alone- David Tribe will tweak it tonight- but read what it says about information there, and modify the beginning of the information section appropriately? see talk page [[Life]]. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 14:28, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
Does that re-express some of your points? [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 03:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


:Nancy, did it.  Will re-review and re-edit as needed to keep the flow. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 16:08, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
:The question of predicting the aromatic nature of benzene may be a toughie, but as you say, once the issue is raised, it may well be that it will become a predictable item as our models of the molecule and the nose improve. Even so, the concepts involved in fashioning an aromatic compound and in describing its interpretation in the brain as aromatic are probably higher level or macro concepts that will illuminate the matter much better for our limited brains than looking at thousands of pages of computer print-out detailing the interaction between massive atomic systems.


== Poetry month ==
:The power of effective concepts is the real value of emergence, which I see more as the emergence of vocabulary that efficiently describes things and aids our limited capacity for intuition.


You managed
:There is a variety of emergent properties, and the way they relate to micro-systems vary as as well: some can be stand-alone, and some supplement micro-theories and make them more effective. We seem to agree that there is no need to emphasize the success or failure of reducing emergent properties to lower level behaviors. The reducibility issue is one aspect of the topic of [[free will]] and whether aspects of consciousness are actually under our control, or are reducible to sub-system behavior. I've not figured out how to handle that one.  [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 15:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


                      Anyway
:Anthony, the article has now been written from several perspectives and it lacks a smooth development. I think it would benefit greatly from an overhaul by yourself that might organize the various topics logically in an evolving narrative. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 16:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


::John, I agree the article needs a coherent, graceful narrative flow. I'd probably need to set aside at least a week to draft that for your review.  I'll do my best to find that week.


[[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 21:26, 7 April 2007 (CDT)
::You say it well: "''The power of effective concepts is the real value of emergence, which I see more as the emergence of vocabulary that efficiently describes things and aids our limited capacity for intuition.''"


::I've tried to handle the consciousness issue by avoiding the nominalization, focusing instead on the activity of conscious experiencing, then trying to explain the activity of experiencing consciously at the physiological level of narrative explanation. That provides a different starting point for a study of the neuronal correlates.  I have the beginning of a draft essay elaborating the approach which I'll send you when I finish. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 20:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


==Darwin==
== Lagrangian mechanics ==


Dear Anthony,
Hi Anthony:
Thats neat. Did you see that I started chopping into [[Organism]]. It that needs a lot of work to give it life.
As you may be aware the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations of mechanics are based upon variational principles: the evolution of a system is found by requiring some global quantity be minimized subject to certain constraints. That is the basis even of the [[Standard model]]. The minimization can be expressed in terms of the equations of motion of the system, which could turn out to be Schrodinger's equation, for example, or the equations of fluid mechanics, for another example. The Lagrangian function depends upon microscopic variables, the generalized coordinates, and interactions between the coordinates are introduced as additional terms.


BTW I never did get to express my personal appreciation for your effort in [[Life]]. It was a tough task, and very ambitious of you (and us all), and my view always, was that it had to be done really well. And it was I think, even though there are still minor blemishes. I saw my role as to try and mediate a completion -  as a go-between almost - that had multiple-editor support. I realise now that there is value in having at least one editor not feeling strong ownership/authoriship and to be well, an editor. It was wonderful to see different inputs, like Gareth and Chris, beavering away in different capacities. I think it worked because all the participants mutually respected the different other  participants and their different strengths and good intentions, all useful. That's what I think.
It strikes me that the philosophy here is reminiscent of the ideas of emergence in that the system is forced to evolve subject to global constraints. Depending upon the system, the evolution may take on a bland uniform pattern, or a complicated one.


Cheers David
In effect this approach assumes the system has "goals" like minimizing its energy or maximizing its entropy or whatever. I wonder whether and how this connection might be incorporated in the article? [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 14:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


:David: I can't tll you how grateful I feel for your comments. I emphasize as I have done before that my contibution to the [[Life]] article found its strongest motivation in a desire to learn as much as I could in a reasonable period of time about the nature of living systems &mdash; basically a selfish aim.  But, as I have no doubt you too have discovered, sharing what one thinks one has learned serves the learning aim because of the inevitable feedback one gets in critiques, offerings of facts and views, and questions.  So one has to try at least to teach in order to learn.  I cannot remember a time when I did not intensely wonder how my body worked, or for that matter how the world works. So the rewarding aspects of the experience of collaborating on the subject with the biology workgroup far outweighed ego-related frustrations such as having one's darling sentences and paragraphs rephrased in someone's style.
:Anthony: I have continued to add to [[Free will]], and presently the view of the article is that ''free will'' is partially an empirical matter regarding just how complex systems work, and partially a semantic issue about finding useful concepts to describe the situation. Although the broad outline of the issues goes back to the early Greeks, there is much detail that needs to be worked out even today.


:I agree with your thought about articles having at least one editor taking a pragmatic stance, in part arbitrator, in part pacemaker. That understates your contribution. I also agree that courtesy derived from mutual respect, especially for the qualities of different strengths and good intentions you mentioned.  No one had horns on for more than the time it took to give the bruise a rub.
:Your help in fashioning this article remains most desirable. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 17:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


:Though very pleased with article, and proud of our accomplishment, personally I feel the article still needs development if we want shoot for the goal of the best among the articles on the subject, meaning we achieved an explanatory excellence that suggests we learned what we set out learn, achieving our selfish goal. The spirit of the wiki can make that level of article excellence happen.  I'd like to see the reader of [[Life]] feel as if they've eaten a gourmet meal with fine wine, and now realize what fine 'living' means, but also have them see a path, through citations and other directed readings, to pursue their own learning goals in any area of biology.  Surely all areas of biology weave into explaining life.  I see [[Life]] as a hub, one that must excel in order to give coherence to the sum of CZ's articles in biology, and to serve them by centering them, reminding them about the meaning and value of orchestratingIn my semi-delirious moods, I see a biology book, perhaps multi-volumed, coming out of the groups' articles &mdash; a printed book that might survive nuclear winter or global warming, when the net shuts down.
::John, you are too gracious. Believe me, nothing excites my mind more than working on challenging writing projects, especially in collaboration with you. But somehow I've got myself doing two administrative jobs for Citizendium that, at least for the near future, preclude me from doing much in the way of content work.   


:I will check out [[Oganism]].  Speaking of 'organism', I appreciated your solomonic decision in [[Life]] to move most of the molecules into its own header, and your well-chosen title "Organic chemistry as informatics".  I also appreciated the reference to Carl Woese's PNAS article in [[Evolution of cells]].  Loved it.  As Thomas Huxley said when he read Darwin's natural selection mechanism, so simple I feel stupid not to have thought of it.  Figure I'll begin to understand after a few dozen more readings.  But I appreciate the importance of horizontal gene transfer as a main player in evolution from cells to organisms to species.  I sent Gareth an article interpreting evidence as indicating horizontal gene transfers in the hominine and pongine lineages, bipeds mating with arboreal knuckle walkers.
::I do like the idea of a ‘quality’ emerging from mathematical fundamentals.


:Cheers to you.
::You might find this article and its references of interest: http://ttic.uchicago.edu/~smale/papers/math-of-emergence.pdf.


:Anthony
::I will eventually jump into [[Free will]], after much more study of your article and references.  [[Emergence (biology)]], too. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 22:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)




::: Great to hear that your attitude to bruises is similar to mine. One extra addendum. In reading for evolution of cells I found some really interesting papers of co-evolution of RNA and protein (after being annoyed by lack of citations). Yes I suspect the RNA world is a name that a disservice to clear thinking. The Protein world is worth developing in the articles. I've dumped my lit search in the talk page (of evolution of cells or Origin of life, cant remember which). Came across papers you'd been citing too.  I havn't read the Arthur Koch and Simon Silver paper. Just the abstract, but I have the paper copy at work. They are both real microbe pros, and Ive met Simon years back. Your idea for a book is interesting as a carrot. Don't worry about climate chance. Extinction is natural and healthy for a young planet. Oxygen was actually good for us. Kills Clostridia too. Cheers again David
==[[Viking longship]]s==
Thanks for adding that image, the article really needed one. There's a photo of the [[Sea Stallion]], but I was hoping for an image of an actual longship rather than a replica. Thanks again, [[User:Richard Nevell|Richard Nevell]] 11:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


== Please see my talk page ==


===Life V 1.1.===
Hi, Anthony.  Milton needs an reapproval.  Can you take a look at [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User_talk:D._Matt_Innis&redirect=no#Re-approval_of_Air_pollution_dispersion_terminology.2FDraft.E2.80.8E my talk page] and see what needs to happen. I'm thinking that the approval manager needs to work this through. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 16:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I have put [[Life/Draft]] V 1.1 up for approval.
Your views on that are welcome, cheers D [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 19:35, 15 April 2007 (CDT)


I have to look back at the sentences, but variety, or varieties had just been used. I'll look, I was reading through- if you click through history you'll see, and just trying to make it sound good, without changing meaning. [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 20:04, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
:Done. Will Certify tomorrow, 26th, to allow for Citizen add'l copyedits, per EC rules. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 19:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


:Great. Thanks.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 22:20, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
::Anthony, the [[Air pollution dispersion terminology]] article was to be re-approved on the September 26th. Just a reminder. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 14:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


== Systems Bio ==
== Image question ==


Formally, I found only 1 identical sentence (for what it is worth..), " ''In 1960, Denis Noble developed the first computer model of a beating heart.''". Still, I set the WP flag since the paragraph around seemed similar to a WP passage (well, now I realize that there's not that much similarity). Clearly, I should have pointed that out when marking Wp content (and usually I do when there is not too much identical text). Sorry for that and thanks for asking.--[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 01:37, 19 April 2007 (CDT)
Hi, I've uploaded an image with can't be used commercially but still has a creative commons licence, File:Pantheon, 2009.jpg. I just wanted to check this is ok as there appears to be a warning box at the bottom of the photo's description (ie: "Notice of CC-by-sa incompatibility"). Thanks, [[User:Richard Nevell|Richard Nevell]] 20:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


::I will fix, so you can decide whether to remove WP tag. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 13:50, 19 April 2007 (CDT)
:Please excuse me for intruding here. That notice of incompatibility appears on dozens of images being used in CZ ... and I have never really understood: (1) what it is saying and (2) why it is needed at all.


:I also noted that the credit line for the Pantheon image had not been created ... so I went ahead and created the credit line. Regards, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 22:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


==Life==
::Thanks for creating the credit line, the incompatibility notice stopped me in my tracks as I was doing it; I thought if I'd made a mistake by uploading the image there was no point doing the credit line. The notice still has me a little confused but if we can use it it's a nice busy photo. [[User:Richard Nevell|Richard Nevell]] 18:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Dear Fellow Biology Editor. The article Life is in danger of being left with out significant bug fixes for another indefinite interval  if we continue as we are doing. All the scientific issues and punctuation issues are resolved but the constable is still not assured of editor support for the bug fix. Would you kindly make no more addition except copyedits and place a note indicating your support near the approval template so we can move on. In the event that Life V 1.1 is approved ignore this request. [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 00:12, 21 April 2007 (CDT)


::: Thanks Anthony for your note. Whats causing the delay is that the constable is unable to make decisions because if they make a mistake, they are seen to be breaking rules. On the other hand the editors all don't seem to realise that it would be much quicker to finalise the batch of valid edits, and even miss one fine points. If necessary we can approve version 1.2 24 hours later. We have to get organised and have a place to record 3 editor signatures against it that's all. At least then we make progress with a ratchet. But for the constable to act, appearance of discord has to be resolved. All I'm trying to do make sure the constable can see where there is consensus. I'm going to propose an informal '''Last supported good draft pointer''', to point to the last version with three editor support. [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 17:14, 21 April 2007 (CDT)
== Requesting a Move/Rename? ==


== call in two hours? ==
Anthony, How do I get a page renamed?  The [[South Vietnamese Buddhist crisis and coup of 1963]] is actually two articles and I've started splitting them.  One was easy enough.  I created the [[South Vietnamese Coup (1963)]] and moved content there.  The [[South Vietnamese Buddhist crisis and coup of 1963]] should now be either moved or renamed to [[South Vietnamese Buddhist crisis (1963)]] (to differentiate it from the [[Buddhist crisis of 1966]]--which should also probably be renamed, but that's a different story).  Thanks. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 22:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


see my talk page for reply- thanks, [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 17:02, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
:Russell, that requires a 'Move' maneuver, which I am not skilled at. Suggest contacting [[User: D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]].  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 23:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


== Walter van den Broek ==
== Scientific method ==


Anthony,
I see that you have made a number of changes to [[Scientific method]] which, because it is an "approved" article, can only be done on [[Scientific method/Draft]]. I've got a couple of questions for you:
I didnot give Walter editor status, as I am 'just' a constable, however due to his profile I invited him to apply asap as editor - and enforced it by the ewelcome :). Walter is a scientist/clinical psychiatrist in Holland and I know of their work. So being editor myself I merely wanted to stimulate him to become one as well. For that reason he (still) has author-ship as category. Thanks for making his editorship final. cheers, [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]]&nbsp;|&nbsp;<span style="background:grey">&nbsp;<font color="yellow"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font>&nbsp;</span>
#Why is there no discussion of these changes on a Talk page?
#What is your notion of whether these changes will become a new version of the approved article?


:Rob, thanks for the explanation. Glad you gave it English, not Dutch.  I will email Dr. Broek his editorship approved.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 15:09, 28 April 2007 (CDT),
An unrelated matter is the content of this article.  
:Anthony, if needed I can translate it for you in Dutch :) (or german) :))  Rob


IMO, which could be supported in part by some recent books (''Big science, little science'', ''The trouble with physics'', ''Not even wrong: the failure of string theory..'')  some science (maybe string theory, maybe multiverses) is approaching the situation where there is reason to question whether the theory used to build observational apparatus and interpret results begs the question of whether a real test has been performed. Also, tests of a theory become so expensive and so arcane they require multinational commitments to construct an observational apparatus (a hadron collider or a Hubble telescope). That being so, the enterprise is threatened by (i) competition for funding by other needs of society, and (ii) observations so remote from everyday experience that one might ask whether such theories have real implications, or are merely pursuits of expensive clubs built for people with odd ideas of how they should spend their lives.


Tribe replied at his talk page [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 16:36, 28 April 2007 (CDT)
Is that pertinent to this article?


Yes I largely agree. I think Catherine could well explain how her proposal fits with Woese's arguments.
[[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 21:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Ill perhaps not say Woese argues that HGT stopped, but decreased by orders of magnitude.[[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 19:55, 29 April 2007 (CDT) By the Way Woese's is so far away from standard frames of refrence, that is a tough topic to discuss dont you think?  [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 19:57, 29 April 2007 (CDT)


Ill try and read Morovitz this aftenoon. (100 pm now my time). d [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 22:04, 29 April 2007 (CDT)
== Site notice ==


It good to contrast this with Kurland
Hi Anthony, I noticed that a small circle has appeared on the top left of every Citizendium page (in the lighter grey part). Is this intentional? If it isn't, I think it's because a character was added to the start of [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]] [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=MediaWiki:Sitenotice&diff=prev&oldid=100811768]. [[User:Richard Nevell|Richard Nevell]] 10:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Kurland CG et al. (2006) Genomics and the irreducible nature of eukaryote cells. Science 312(5776):1011-4 PMID 16709776
:: Yup. Agrree with your last comment. And I still havnt read Morovitz!!!! (BTW diD you read Morowitzs little books?)


==plants re: organismal vs cell theory==
:Right on, Richard. I found it precisely where you predicted, and I gleefully exterminated it. Thanks. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 03:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree with that statement that recent data overturns cell theory (the Barlow quote in life). A slight modification perhaps, but that quote seems to be hyperbole from my perspective as a plant developmental biologist.   We can discuss it in more detail if you wish. But for starters I'll throw out the fact that there are GAP junctions in animals, cell syncytials in dropsophila and plenty of evidence that cell theory holds in plants too, just not all the time. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 13:02, 30 April 2007 (CDT)


:Chris, I would have to do a lot of literature study to support/dispute the Baluska argumentBut his pictures do show a 'common' cytoplasm, and implies that the plant organism in general has that. I defer to your experience and knowledge.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 13:31, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
== Thank you ==
::But does he mention that there is not random diffusion through plamodesmata?  It is a gated system and controlled by the cells so that there are domain of cells that are in communication. My only point is that this does not disprove cell theory, it's just a modification. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 13:36, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
Thanks for your kind words, which I have followed up.  As for the Forums thing, I would pay more attention if other people seemed to use them more oftenAs it is, there seem to be long temporal gaps after many of the last contributions. (I suppose that non-use on those grounds is self-perpetuating.) Also, it took me a while to realise I had to have a separate sign-in, and I am not clear how to start a new thread.


::Chris, I will re-read carefully, follow up his references, bone up on my plant physiology &mdash; then try to say something intelligent. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 15:04, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
One other niggle: The CZ notice on the Welcome page is kept up to date (more or less), but whenever one goes to a subject page, the CZ notice on that is the one for the time it was last updated.  Surely it is better not to have a notice there than to have one that is out of date, possibly by years.  --[[User:Martin Wyatt|Martin Wyatt]] 18:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
:::And to be fair, i should read the review you cited ;) [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 15:20, 30 April 2007 (CDT)


== Contraception  ==
:Hi Martin. Odd, I don't have that 'site-notice page-discrepancy' with the usual popular browsers (IE10, FFx, Chrome) with my Win7 desktop. I'll keep checking. Sometimes I'm late updating, but there should not be a discrepancy between the Welcome page and other pages. Hmm... [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 22:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


I have been the primary author of an article on the medical methods of contraception - [[Contraception (medical methods)]]. It has just been nominated for approval by Gareth Leng. Could you kindly read it? As a physician, I encourage you to edit as needed. put your comments on the talk page, if you support the nomination-please add your name to the template. If you believe that the article should not be approved, please remove the template for nomination. Obviously I hope that you support it, but I want to make it clear that you do have that option. Thanks, [[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 06:05, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
== [[Pompeii]] ==


Thanks so much, I'll gert the book (on good authority).[[User:Nancy Sculerati|Nancy Sculerati]] 19:01, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
Hello Anthony, is there any chance we can finish with [[Pompeii]]?  Thanks. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 21:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


== Homeostasis notes ==
:Hi Russell. Will check, let you know. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 03:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


[[User:Aleksander Stos|Aleksander Stos]] [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,954.msg7279.html#msg7279 noted] on the forums that you created a page with the title  "Http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Anthony.Sebastian/Homeostasis/Sebastian_Notes". This cannot be reached normally, but you can reach it by using the URL http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Anthony.Sebastian/Homeostasis/Sebastian_Notes . It's pretty confusing, so you may want to do something about it. -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 04:24, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
== Editable 'Main Articles' and Approved-Locked 'Citable Articles'. ==


:The content has been moved to [[User:Anthony.Sebastian/Homeostasis/Sebastian Notes]] so I went ahead and deleted the malformed pagename. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 11:58, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
Hi Anthony:


::I HAVE NOW CONVERTED IT TO A CZ LIVE ARTICLE: [[Homeostasis (Biology)  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 12:07, 5 October 2007 (CDT)
There are a couple of observations I'd like to make about [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Anthony.Sebastian/r01 this draft resolution] of yours.


== [[:Image:Roadmap_large.jpg]] ==
First, it appears to suggest "all articles to open as editable Main Articles". I assume this to mean editable by CZ members and not the public at large?


Hi Anthony.  Just to let you know we have to use images released under a real nameI sent the person at Flickr the following email:
The main suggestion, as I understand it, is to change the present policy of locked approved versions to instead a policy of locked citable versions and editable versions that are the default first access to an article.   


<pre>
I think that is a good idea, because it will encourage changes to articles that presently are nearly impossible for 'approved' articles because of red tape, unavailability of original authors whose approval is needed, and general reluctance by originating authors to see their work altered in any way. If I have understood the proposal, I support it. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 13:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello. We are trying to use an image of yours
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Image:Roadmap_large.jpg
in http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Systems_biology but
cannot because it needs to be attributed to a real-named
person per the Creative Commons license. Would you kindly
let me know your name so we may use this photo and not
have to remove it?  Thanks!


http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Stephen_Ewen
:Yes, John, you understand the referendum. The red tape will still be there for the 'Citable Version', but readers won't see that automatically. If the Main Article is editable, it may induce more readers to join Citizendium so they can edit it. As you say, it will "encourage changes" plus encourage joining. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 18:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
</pre>
.


[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 17:17, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
== What to be done about this? ==


:This image is all set now. You can visit the image page to see. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 22:59, 22 June 2007 (CDT)
What should be done about [[What happened to Citizendium?|this]], which is a rewritten version of [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Wikipedia/Activity&oldid=100819811 this]? [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 21:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


:John,  the article on what happened to Citizendium  does not seem to me to be  an encyclopedia- type entry. I would move it  to  CZ namespace. Also, I do not find it very informative. The author has not been  an active contributor and in particular  has made no encyclopedia  article edits or starts, so I don't think  he is truly into what's happening  at Citizendium.  We might want to consider removing the article entirely. What do you think? [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 05:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
::It could be deleted or, with some effort, a de-snarked and corrected version could be placed under Citizendium/Activity, just as the original appears at [[Wikipedia/Activity]]. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 09:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
:::Your second option sounds good to me. We just need to find a de-snarker and corrector to do the job. It would be great is Aleksander Stos would do that. Shall we bring him into the discussion? [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 22:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
::::I've moved it to [[Citizendium/Activity]] and will let him know. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 15:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
::: I've looked at this. Well, de-snarking would mean simply replacing it with a more informative/objective analysis. More precisely, I think it is hopeless to incrementally edit the present text, the overall tone is quite unencyclopedic (more like a polemic essay) and I would feel compelled to change almost every sentence.
::: That said, its language is indeed modeled on the Wikipedia/Activity article. One has impression that the Author [Linden] didn't like the Wikipedia/Activity article and produced an obviously unacceptable analogue to make a point. While I strongly disagree with such a method (BTW explicitly forbidden in Wikipedia), I do think the original Wikipedia/Activity article, while way more informative, factual, and rooted in the real scientific research, has a quite apparent bias against Wikipedia.
::: In my opinion, a proper action would be to deal with the Wikipedia/Activity first. Then, I'd remark that the activity of Citizendium is not as notable subject as that of Wikipedia (e.g. little to no external scientific references). Accordingly, I would be tempted to replace the present CZ/Activity essay by a relatively short summary of our activity (not necessarily that different in some points). Putting it on my todo, not sure however how fast this could be done (I permanently lack the time). But, after all, this is a wiki. Cheers, [[User:Aleksander Stos|Aleksander Stos]] 12:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
::::Having looked at it more closely, it appears unsalvageable. The main problems, apart from the snarkiness, are that it states that the reasons for the decline are unknown (i.e. it is uninformative) and that it bases the discussion on general links to CZ forums and RationalWiki's article on CZ (which can change and is written anonymously), rather than specific data points, and so does not precisely back up any claims (as Aleksander says, there is little rigorous study of CZ's performance out there). There is also the specific error that CZ Editors "own" articles. May as well move it to user space. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 18:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


==Causes==
:::::I'm in favor of the move to userspace. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 21:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
As always what you write is thought provoking.
::::::OK, [[User:Linden Killam/Citizendium|done]] and move-locked. A sysop can move back a revised version. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 21:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm no philosopher and I suspect that this issue is beyond the scope of the article on Aristotle. However it seems to me that it could be the seed of something different - an article on Causality in Biology. ?


It does seem to me that the essence of Systems Biology implies that the causal narratives that we tend to want to use to describe biological systems are, well, often just narratives really.
==Signed Articles==
Anthony, where are you with the "Signed Article" change? It appears that, if authors are willing to receive and respond to comments, there can be a kind of peer-review process. The key would be knowing the qualifications of the people making the comment ... kind of a novel idea to have peer review visible to the public and that remains part of the article's history. [[User:Thomas Butler|Thomas Butler]] 00:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 12:59, 13 August 2007 (CDT)
== You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2014 election ==


:Gareth, thanks for giving my little narrative some thought and for your suggestions. "Causality in Biology", hmmm...beyond my reach I think, though would challenge.
You've been nominated as a candidate in the [[User:ElectionJune2014|June 2014 election]]. Please visit [[User:ElectionJune2014/Nominations|this page]] to accept or decline each position. No action will also be treated as declining. If you accept, you may choose to write an election statement for each position - see the election page for further details. Alternatively, contact me via my Talk page or privately via e-mail. Regards, [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 13:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


:Regarding your comment on causal narratives to describe biological systems: I agree, they give explanation only on the narrative level.  Yet, narrative consists of patterns of words, sentences, paragraphs, et al., yielding patterns of ideas/concepts, and mathematics in essence  describes/depicts patterns, and understanding means patterns in the brain. It may take using the language of mathematics to read the book of nature, but translating what you read into the language of narrative becomes a necessity for bulk of humanity who can speak mathematics very well.
==Homeostasis==
Anthony, I added to the subsection [[Homeostasis (biology)#Scope of homeostasis]]. You might take a look and see if it is what you had in mind. [[User:John R. Brews|John R. Brews]] 15:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


:Feynman believed in narrative, and lectured on topics steeped in advanced mathematics to freshman in narrative. I have much respect for good translators.
== Author Representative Comments on Forum Communications ==
On Sunday, August 17, 2014, I knowingly and intentionally deleted my Forum account. Constabulary promptly notified me that this would prevent me from having access to some areas of the Forum reserved for Council business. Appreciating that this action could be misconstrued, I want to make it clear that I wish to fulfill my duties as Author Representative, but I will not do so in the Forum. I am unaware of any reason why participating in the Forum should be required for performing the duties of Author Representative. So, it seems prudent to bring this to your attention for consideration in the event the Council wishes to include me in a vote.  


:Regarding my piece on the relation of Aristotle's four 'causes' and the 'explanation' of living things, I think I might submit it for Workgroup consideration as a 'signed article' subpage for [[Life]]. Or as a separate article, and let whoever have at it.  A separate article might do better for CZ's stats.  What do you think?  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 14:19, 13 August 2007 (CDT)
Why have I taken this action? My experience has been that Forum deliberations are dominated by a very small group of persons. This almost certainly serves as a disincentive for participation by others. (It has this effect for me.) I have also come to appreciate that I am not comfortable using ''private channels'' for Council activities which other "citizens" cannot monitor. To this end, I have created a [[User_talk:Christine_Bush#Council_Communications|Council Communications section]] on my talk page where my votes or thoughts can be transparently recorded and easily found should they be requested. If they are not, that will say something too. [[User:Christine Bush|Christine Bush]] 18:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


==need leadin paragraph==
: Hi Anthony, I just wanted to share with Council colleagues (and I have communicated with Gareth, Peter also) [[User_talk:Christine_Bush#Some_background_for_visitors|some additional thoughts about my recent decision to delete my Forum account]].
Tonly I need a leadin paragraph for the systems biology section. I have (hidden in the edit text) a copy from the website ==Need help with systems biology lead in==


I requested permission to reprint it but did not receive a reply. I have it hidden in the edit copy. Can you come up with a leadin for the systems biology section? What they write sounds good, except for the subsystem is a childsystem stuff. Let me know what you think?
== Motion Regarding Special Pages ==
[[User:Thomas Mandel|Thomas Mandel]] 23:59, 26 August 2007 (CDT)
Anthony, I would like to suggest that Council request modifications to articles being developed in the User: space, or "sandbox" pages, not be listed on the [[Special:RecentChanges]] because it defeats the purpose of providing authors with an area where we can develop ideas ''prior'' to creating or modifying an article. These are functionally only potential changes. As I have not been provided with any instructions on how to initiate a motion, I'm posting it here. [[User:Christine Bush|Christine Bush]] 20:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


== Images ==
:Christine, on the Recent Changes page, in 'Namespace' box, select 'Main', then 'GO' at right. See if that gives you what you want.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 21:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


See [[User_talk:Stephen_Ewen#Need_help_with_licensing_of_images_from_open-access_PLoS_Biology_articles|here]]. &nbsp;&mdash;[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 00:05, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
Anthony, thanks for pointing out this feature. To be clear, I am proposing a change in functionality that will affect all wiki visitors and users---not just me. I am suggesting that both the User: and User_talk: namespaces should be removed altogether from the Recent Changes page o''ptions and results''. The functional effect is that any and all pages in the User: or User_talk: namespaces will no longer display or be found via the Recent Changes page. (It should be fairly trivial to implement if Council approved the idea. A casual code inspection of the page source suggests only two options with values of 2 and 3 could be removed from the form select element with name "namespace." The default query that runs when the page first loads would also need to be updated.) [[User:Christine Bush|Christine Bush]] 03:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
:You can put your proposal before the Council [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Citizendium_Council here]. I'll copy it to the appropriate Council Board on the Citizendium Forums. BTW: I do work on my word processor if I don't want it revealed until completed.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 03:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


== Volunteering Sebastian request to insert Signed Article in Life/draft ==
::Would people still be able to put such pages on their watchlists? [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 09:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Anthony, I think your main problem here is you are not creating a new article. In fact, it is a subpage of the Life article.  I have created your signed article and you can see it at [[Life/Signed_Articles/John_Whitfield]]. Since this was the first signed article for Life I also created the following page [[Life/Signed_Articles]] [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 08:12, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
:::Hi Peter. Yes, one should absolutely still be able to add them to a watchlist and otherwise do all the things one has been able to do or would expect. This proposal is a small change to the functionality of the Recent Changes page only, not to any pages in the User: or User_talk: namespaces or their existing functionality.
Just a question--even though of course we have the ''right''to reprint it, have you asked him whether he is willing for us to do so? I would not be happy inserting someone else's essay without telling him and at last giving him a chance to object -- just as a matter of courtesy. [[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 18:58, 20 September 2007 (CDT)


::Agree. I will call his atention to what we've done, link to it, ask him if he has any changes he'd like to make, or further comments. Thanks for courtesy tip. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 14:31, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
:::My primary rationale for this suggestion are: 1) to assure the items displayed on Recent Changes are representative of contributions being made to article content, which I believe is what one expects to see when visiting this page; 2) to indirectly encourage participation by eliminating entries on the Recent Changes page which may have the effect of inflating activity; 3) to better encourage participation by way of providing more privacy, both for work on article content and for discussions which might otherwise happen off-wiki; 4) make it more difficult for those without the best interest of CZ in mind to monitor contributor activities not directly related to content, i.e. our business. You and others may well be able to think of more effects. [[User:Christine Bush|Christine Bush]] 17:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


== Delete talk page? ==
=== Word Processing vs. Wiki Processing ===
::Hi Anthony, thank you for this procedural assistance. I applaud the practice of working on a word processor, and totally encourage contributors to spell check, grammar check, and backup their work.


Hi Anthony, is there a reason to keep the [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:The_four_Aristotelian_causes_of_living_things Talk] page on Aristotlian causes of living things? No problem if there is, I always forget the talk page. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 19:04, 20 September 2007 (CDT)
::I suspect that you also appreciate that there are also many good reasons for working in the sandbox. Some which come to mind are: ease of formatting content for wiki syntax and layout; practice using wiki syntax; the ability to post drafts for sharing and comment from multiple users (without the overhead of version control) prior to inclusion under "Main article"; production of content that is non-proprietary, easy to exchange/interchange, and ready to use on a wiki; ease of editing content ported to CZ from other wikis; the ability to work on an article from multiple locations or different computers without having to carry your draft with you (although, [[word processing]] in the [[cloud]] via [[Google Docs]], [[Evernote]], etc. seems to be becoming more commonplace and makes this last reason a bit more ephemeral---all the more reason to reinforce CZ as friendly, convenient cloud destination for working and thinking); work in the sandboxes is presumably being backed up regularly and becomes part of the project's knowledgebase even in incomplete/draft form.


::No reason to keep it. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 14:27, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
::In other words, word processing is not wiki processing. This goes to my election statement in which I said that I thought CZ needs to better come to terms with its "core identity". CZ should be what it is: a wiki. [[User:Christine Bush|Christine Bush]] 17:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
:Christine, Yes, I appreciate the value of sandboxes; I have numerous sandboxes that I use for different purposes.


== Supplementary text --> Addendum? ==
: But since you can eliminate their appearance on the Recent Changes Page by selecting the Main namespace, I see no reason to eliminate the functionality of their appearance when selecting the All namespaces choice on the Recent Changes Page. Indeed, there are many good reasons to allow recent changes to show user talk pages and sandbox activity, which I will not go into here.
Anthony, Chris and I are concerned that "Supplementary Text" is just too long for the tabs.  That (template) real estate is very valuable.  How would "Addendum" do for a name? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 19:36, 20 September 2007 (CDT)
:Hi Anthony, I set up a test run for you to check out. See [[Life/Addendum]].  [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 19:54, 20 September 2007 (CDT)
::Thanks. Like it very much.  Would it task greatly to change to "Addenda", or do you think not necessary?  Thinking we might have distinctly different topics covered there as separate sections in a TOC.  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 20:11, 20 September 2007 (CDT)
:::Even with mutliple sections doesn't it still represent an addendum for the life article?  Can you have more than one addendum for an article, as opposed to an appendix where you could have several. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 20:23, 20 September 2007 (CDT)
::::I agree, Addendum better.  I already made the link [[Life/Addendum]] in [[Life/Draft]], so readers will have two places to find the addendum to the article.--[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 20:33, 20 September 2007 (CDT)


==List of Evolutionary biologists==
:The only reason I suggested using a word processor for preliminary work was because I suspected that you wanted to keep your sandbox work secret. I do that sometimes. But mostly I use one of my sandboxes for preliminary work. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 21:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


I noted that you are adding to the list of evolutionary biologists - many thanks - what do you think about splitting them into "living" and "dead" persons?
== Re: EAP status ==
Anthony, [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,4551.msg46670.html#msg46670 I resigned as EAP]. If my temporary appointment to that role was worthy of listing on the [[CZ:Council|CZ:Council page]] it seems like my resignation from it should be, too. [[User:Christine Bush|Christine Bush]] 20:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
:Done. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 21:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


[[User:Lee R. Berger|Lee R. Berger]] 04:14, 28 September 2007 (CDT)
== Council members' votes on proposal to move forums to the CZ wiki ==


:Lee, a good idea to indicate whether living today. But 'today' ephemeral. How about adding in parentheses birth-year and death-year (or "- blank") for each, then filling in the blanks later as deaths occur?  --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 21:35, 29 September 2007 (CDT)
[http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,4568.0.html proposal]


:That would be a great ide - if you have the research handy then we could put that in and adopt it for all of the "lists". As we are going to be an authoratative reference, we might go so far as to put a citation for each series of dates? Something to put to the editors at large. Keep up the good work!
Council members:


[[User:Lee R. Berger|Lee R. Berger]] 01:55, 30 September 2007 (CDT)
Enter your vote (yes/no) below with your four tilde signature. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 00:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


Simpson looks good - fire away!
* yes [[User:Christine Bush|Christine Bush]] 00:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
* yes [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 07:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
:Two yes votes constitutes a majority, therefore the motion passes.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 18:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


[[User:Lee R. Berger|Lee R. Berger]] 14:02, 8 October 2007 (CDT)
== Referendum 3 ==


== [[Italo Calvino]] ==
Thanks for your support and for picking up the error; I've switched it to 14 days. Unfortunately, I see this as a significant change, so have to ask you to sign again at [[User:ElectionJune2015/Referenda]]. Thanks. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] ([[User talk:John Stephenson|talk]]) 11:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for the adds. Cool! Please add other stuff if you know the argument. I read almost everything of him in the original language, but I'm more the scientist kind of guy, not a professional of literature... --[[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]] 05:07, 4 October 2007 (CDT)
== You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2016 election ==


==help with checklist==
You've been nominated as a candidate for the  post of [[CZ:Managing Editor|Managing Editor]] in the [[User:ElectionJune2016|June 2016 election]]. Please visit [[User:ElectionJune2016/Nominations|this page]] to accept or decline. No action will also be treated as declining. If you accept, you may choose to write an election statement - see the election page for further details. Alternatively, contact me via my Talk page or privately via e-mail. Regards, [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] ([[User talk:John Stephenson|talk]]) 00:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I just posted a [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User_talk%3AChris_Day&diff=100181381&oldid=100181371 reply to your questions]. Let me know now you get on. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 21:56, 4 October 2007 (CDT)


== Volunteer "wikiconverters" ==
== You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2016 election ==


In follow up to the post at http://blog.citizendium.org/2007/10/12/wiki-markup-language-what-you-see-is-messy/#comments
You've been nominated as a candidate for the [[CZ:Council|Citizendium Council]] in the [[User:ElectionJune2016|June 2016 election]]. Please visit [[User:ElectionJune2016/Nominations|this page]] to accept or decline. No action will also be treated as declining. If you accept, you may choose to write an election statement - see the election page for further details. Alternatively, contact me via my Talk page or privately via e-mail. Regards, [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] ([[User talk:John Stephenson|talk]]) 19:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


Add your name here if you wish to be a volunteer:
== Cowdray House ==


*[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]]
Hello Anthony, in case you missed it I left a comment you might want to respond to at [[Forum Talk:Non-member Comments and Suggestions on Approvals#Cowdray House]]. [[User:Richard Nevell|Richard Nevell]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell|talk]]) 20:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
*[[User:Reuven Lazarus|Reuven Lazarus]] ([[User talk:Reuven Lazarus|talk]])
:Hi, would you be open to discussing the Cowdray House article? [[User:Richard Nevell|Richard Nevell]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell|talk]]) 18:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
:HEllo, it's the dim and distant past now but would you be able to comment at the above forum? [[User:Richard Nevell|Richard Nevell]] ([[User talk:Richard Nevell|talk]]) 18:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


== Comments re human 'wikiconverter' project ==
== Anthony ==


Comments:
With sadness I must notify the community that our friend and colleague Anthony passed away last year. He served this project with distinction, first as an expert Editor and then as its managerial lead. He was a great help and support to me personally and I'm sure to many of you. Some links [https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sfgate/obituary.aspx?n=anthony-sebastian&pid=190490872 here] and [https://www.forevermissed.com/anthony-sebastian/#about here].


Fantastic idea, thanks for taking the bull by the horns, Anthony! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 20:37, 16 October 2007 (CDT)
Goodbye, Anthony, and thank you. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] ([[User talk:John Stephenson|talk]]) 20:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


The easiest way to do this is to take the Word Document, save it as HTML (you can do this directly from MS Word, as I understand it), then run the HTML source through something like [http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/html2wiki/ this]. --[[User:ZachPruckowski|ZachPruckowski]] ([[User_talk:ZachPruckowski|Speak to me]]) 20:53, 16 October 2007 (CDT)
:I see he was still contributing here just 9 days before his death. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] ([[User talk:Peter Jackson|talk]]) 10:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:15, 26 January 2019

Hourglass drawing.svg Where Anthony lives it is approximately: 15:56

Creating my User Talk Page. --Anthony.Sebastian
Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 13:48, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Intro

Current UTC Time: -8 hours
Current UTC Time: 15:56


To Approve articles Diberri citation maker Help Wikiformatting Citizendium Test Wiki CZ:How to use Bugzilla



Please review Los Alamos National Laboratory for spelling, grammar, and whatever

Anthony, I would very much appreciate it if you would review Los Alamos National Laboratory for spelling, grammar, and whatever else you think may be needed. Let me have your comments on the article's Talk page. Thanks, Milton Beychok 20:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anthony

Back after a holiday - I take it I'm not still needed for Alcmeion?Gareth Leng 08:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Gareth. Alcmaeon (a.k.a., Alkmaion): Approved. Hope you enjoyed your vacation, though you may have meant 'vacation from CZ'. OMBs need such. Anthony.Sebastian 22:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Asking for your help again

Anthony, the Project Apollo article needs a critical review by a History author like yourself. See here the documentation of my recent extensive edits to that article.

Anything you can do to make it more readable, more interesting, etc. would be appreciated. Milton Beychok 04:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Milton, I have a few deadlines related to academic year ending. I took a look at Project Apollo and will plan to work on it starting sometime in July, though the start of the academic year also puts demands on me.
Thanks for steering me in the article's direction. The Apollo missions were incredible achievements. Anthony.Sebastian 14:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Anthony, thanks for your added references and edits as well as for picking up my goof in defining "billion". Milton Beychok 21:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirect of Biological mathematics

Hi Anthony: I've moved the article Biological mathematics to Biological computation, which seems to me to fit the content of this article pretty well. Please excuse my doing this before your have had a chance to comment upon it. I don't think it is a very controversial change, but it may be a bit startling to find what has happened in your absence. If so, my apologies. John R. Brews 18:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Electric charge

Anthony: If you take a look at Talk:Electric_charge#Definition_of_electric_charge you will see that while technically you are right that the article Electric charge should begin with a definition of electric charge, that approach is awkward, and the simple change you have made in the lead sentence of this article does not solve the problem.

There seems to me to be two possibilities: the one you object to that begins by defining charge and then defines electric charge and how it is distinct from magnetic charge. Alternatively, one can make a new article Charge, describing a fundamental property of matter that causes matter having that property to generate and react to a force of attraction or repulsion to spatially separate matter that likewise manifests the property of charge.

Then one can refer to this article in the article Electric charge as one of the two known types of charge, magnetic and electric, with the distinguishing property that electric charges can be isolated, while while an isolated magnetic charge or magnetic monopole never has been observed.

In any event, I find the present arrangement unsatisfactory. John R. Brews 04:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the matter is complicated further by the concept of "color charge". John R. Brews 15:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Also complicated by mass: "In physics, mass is an extensive physical property of a system and is most frequently measured in the SI unit of kilograms. Mass is the "charge" of the gravitational force, and the resistance an object has to force." From CZ article.
I like the idea of dealing with 'charge' in a separate article, Charge. I too was thinking of that, but I did not feel qualified to do it justice. I suppose we could start it as a stub, with the lede sentence you suggested. I give it a try, unless you really want to do it yourself. I'm away Sunday, could do it Monday.
At any rate, in Electric charge, I had wanted the reader to know a bit more about electric charge before introducing magnetic charge, or charge in general. Anthony.Sebastian 04:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
A start at an article. John R. Brews 05:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
The treatment of color charge and its connection to nuclear forces needs work. John R. Brews 14:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I set up a talk page to consider how this article should be written at User:John R. Brews/Sample/Talk. John R. Brews 16:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Anthony: Perhaps a god approach to Charge is to make it a disambiguation page. There are so many different "charges" even within science that it seems they are almost unconnected. For example, Charge (electromagnetic) could include both electric and magnetic charge, replacing the present Electric charge. Charge (chromodynamic) could discuss color charge. Then we are left with Charge (baryonic), Charge (leptonic), which appear to be different in that they are not related to forces at all, but to symmetry classifications. Maybe you have some more?
Although mass is related to the force of gravity by the same potential theory as electromagnetism via Poisson's equation, it is not referred to as a "charge" in physics texts (a Google books search does not turn up this terminology, despite its use in the CZ article Mass), and is ultimately related to the curvature of space time, a form of "fictitious" force depending upon the observer like centrifugal force.
The disambiguation page would have to include non-science versions too, of course, like Charge (military), Charge (explosive). Maybe you have some more? John R. Brews 14:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
John, it appears we already have Charge as a disambiguation page, automatically redirected from Charge. It currently has three entries:
I would prefer separate articles on Charge (science), Electric charge, Magnetic charge plus the ones you suggested: Charge (chromodynamic) Charge (baryonic), Charge (leptonic), Charge (military), Charge (explosive), Charge business, Chargés d'affaires, etc.
By Charge (science), I refer to the Sample article you started.
I do not ignore your Charge (electrodynamic), but in the interests of the readers, separate articles on electric and magnetic charges would seem better, as each deserves it own treatment in order to do it justice and teach the unique aspects of each. —Anthony.Sebastian 21:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Your introductory charge article

Hi Anthony:

As you know, there are several ways to introduce a subject. One is to present the current understanding from a logical standpoint supported by today's experimental data. That method depends upon an abstract turn of mind that enjoys an axiomatic approach, related by experiments to reality. These concepts and data are not necessarily naively intuitive.

Another approach is historical. That method begins in the past and works to the present. Its goal is not to be historically accurate in explaining all the false steps and all the confusions of the historical record. Rather, the goal is to adopt the naive view of each epoch and show how that sharpened and evolved with advances in argument and experimental data. This method is helpful to beginners, because the early work has the same naivete as the readers themselves, and so they can advance in understandable steps toward the less intuitive, more involved, present view.

I'd recommend the last approach to you. There is no point in trying to present a simplified approach based strictly upon concepts from an early time that are now outmoded. Instead, any overly simple concepts are presented as the tentative approach peculiar to a certain epoch, expected to be transcended, and are not presented as a logical structure still considered appropriate. John R. Brews 16:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In particular, the concept of "matter" is treacherous, and has evolved considerably over time. John R. Brews 16:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

To elaborate a bit: the Greek idea of atoms became the indestructible atoms of the 19th century, then were replaced by indivisible electrons, protons and neutrons, then replaced by the indivisible quarks and leptons and the bosons they exchange (or maybe only the gluons, as photons aren't included; the contributions to matter are a bit fuzzy). At each stage, matter took on a new definition, allowing a wider and wider range of forms of matter, for example, the quark-gluon plasma, which can't even be defined from the view of matter as an assembly of atoms. John R. Brews 16:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

John, thanks for your advice on how to approach a 'student level' treatment of electric charge. I think both approaches you described have their pedagogical merits. I'd like to find a coherent way to include both approaches.
I'd wanted to develop a complete draft of the 'student level' subpage before presenting it, not wanting to waste your time. But your helpful comments show your interest, so I'm inclined to seek your comments as I develop the draft. My earliest notes you can read at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Anthony.Sebastian/Sbox01. They are quite embryonic.
My thought is to start somewhat oversimplified, then introduce the complexities later. First an introduction based on the basics of our modern understanding, then, in a separate section, an historical account along the lines you mentioned above. Anthony.Sebastian 23:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Anthony: The outline at your sandbox is at a pretty early stage. At the moment it seems to aim at some ideas that lead to Coulomb's law, expressed in words. It is not necessary to base matters upon atoms, electrons and protons to do that, and historically that was not the path. As you know, electricity began with charged objects like rubbed amber, and the inverse square law was established by Cavendish and Coulomb without reference to atoms. Atomic concepts have their own subtle history in chemistry and are themselves much more complex concepts than the notion of electric charge. Possibly, after charge is established as a notion, it can be applied to atoms, if that seems desirable. John R. Brews 14:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
John, here's how I see my starting aim: to explain electric charge in today's science, at a level of explanation accessible to an educated general audience, assuming that their knowledge includes no more than a secondary-school level of knowledge of science, including that matter consists of atoms and that atoms consist of protons, neutrons, and electrons in the solar system (Bohr) model. In between textbook and popscibook, closer to textbook.
I agree that knowing the history of the development of the concept of electric charge importantly enriches one's grasp of the concept, but as the starter for a student-level treatment of electric charge, I personally find it better first to help the student acquire/enhance some grasp of the basic concept. Anyway, that's how it works for me as I try to increase my knowledge of physics and chemistry—and without having to know/learn advanced mathematics, I might add (no pun intended).
Ideally, I would hope to integrate the two approaches into a single woven narrative. I see the project taking months to accomplish, given the time I can devote. In the end, I'd like to see positive responses from secondary-school students taking an academic curriculum.
I can't express how satisfying it is for me to have your input helping me organize consciously my thinking. Anthony.Sebastian 22:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Boxed comments in your articles

Hi Anthony:

Your recently amended contribution Herophilus contains some very long boxed instructions for the novice reader of CZ (or any other wiki for that matter). In the article Vesalius I trimmed this boxed content without encountering objections from you (thank you), but your article Herophilus possibly has extended this text beyond even what was originally in Vesalius. Here is what I refer to:

Most citations to articles listed here include links — in font-color blue — to full-text. Accessing full-text may require personal or institutional subscription. Nevertheless, many with do offer full-text, and if not, usually offer text or links that show the abstracts of the articles, free without subscription. Links to books variously may open to full-text, or to the publishers' description of the book with or without downloadable selected chapters, reviews, and table of contents. Books with links to Google Books often offer extensive previews of the books' text.

and here is my trimmed version:

Many citations here include blue links that open variously to full-text or to a publisher's description of the work. Links to Google books often offer an extensive preview of the text.

Of course, I am not a novice reader of CZ or WP, and what is said in these boxes is of no interest to me at all. Hence, I might be expected to find this boxed information a distraction.

Although I cannot put myself in the frame of mind of someone reading Herophilus as my first ever encounter with a wiki article, my best imagining of this situation is that it is overkill even for such a novice. More than that, thinking of the average reader, I suspect very few will encounter Herophilus as their very first article.

Probably (IMO of course) general observations of this kind are better placed in some kind of "Advice to the Novice" article along the lines of Google's tips for effective search. You will notice that Google does not include this kind of instruction on its primary search page. If it were thought helpful, a link to the "Aid to Novices" instruction article could replace the boxed instructions you are wont to include in every article.

Maybe you would reconsider your approach to boxed guidance to the uninitiated? John R. Brews 16:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

John, I agree that the boxed information note not necessary for most readers. I removed it from Herophilus, and will eliminate it from other articles as they turn up.
I appreciate your interest in the articles I'm working on, and grateful for what I'm learning from you. Sometimes I'm a little overzealous in spoon-feeding readers. I like your idea re link to Advice for New Readers article. Anthony.Sebastian 03:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Anthony: I'd say you're eminently qualified to write an Advice for New Readers page. It could include the content of your text box, and a few more things too, like finding the CZ: xxx pages identified at CZ:Home and what's in the left-column links. This new article should be linked among these left-column links and made a CZ: xxx page. John R. Brews 14:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment, John. First, I've got find where my clone disappeared. Or, I've got to get my time-stopping machine working. Anthony.Sebastian 03:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Change of figure

Anthony: I replaced this figure of yours:

(CC) Image: Anthony Sebastian (adapted from data from Wolfram Alpha)

with this one:

(PD) Image: John R. Brews

which compresses the horizontal scale allowing a narrower display on a laptop screen. It also uses the same years at each tick in each panel, and an interval of 20 years in all the panels, which makes it easier to read the lifetimes from the scales, and lines up the scales in each panel so the same years are vertically above one another.

I hope these changes find favor. John R. Brews 16:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done, John. I was never too happy with my original, and had it on my list to redo, plus add a caption describing the anatomy-to-physiology-to-microscopic anatomy sequence represented by those three fellows in the history of medicine. Also you remind me, unintentionally, to get back to the Harvey and Malpighi articles.
BTW, what program did you use to make the image? Anthony.Sebastian 02:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Anthony: Glad you liked this. It was made using Microsoft Excel 2010 and saving the result with Microsoft Paint. Excel 2007 was OK for this too, but the earlier Excel versions are more restricted in their choices of colors and shadings. You might be able to do the same using Word instead of Excel. John R. Brews 05:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Timeline image

(CC) Diagram: Anthony Sebastian
New timeline for Vesalius.
(PD) Image: John R. Brews
Key scientists in classical mechanics.

Anthony, I thought your new figure looked very nice, so I tried something like that myself. See below, right.

The issue comes up that some people don't live long enough to allow a box containing their names. I tried one "solution", color inside the name box. Do you have some other ideas?

Nice job. John R. Brews 22:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

John, thanks. I just wanted to do a test, not to supplant your fine figure in Vesalius, rather thinking of future articles.
Re the short-lived notables:
  • adjust width of timeline to accommodate non-fitters
  • reduce font-size as needed; shouldn't jar too much
  • color in box, but leave off box border; might need caption note
All I can think of. Anthony.Sebastian 03:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Anthony: I tried out your suggestions and settled upon the last one: image here is updated.
Thank you. John R. Brews 11:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks great, John. Go for it. Anthony.Sebastian 18:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Chemical elements

See my note at Talk:Periodic_table_of_elements#Official_names. Peter Jackson 10:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Language Evolution

Hi Anthony, there is a discussion over at this page about a potential move for this article. Could you take a look? David Finn 12:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, there are more comments over at this article, but before you look may I make a suggestion.
Since this article is the only one on Citizendium with "synopsis" in the title, how about I move the article to Language Evolution (book) and attempt to write a short introduction about the book, followed by all the text that is currently there. I think that may solve any issues. What do you think? David Finn 12:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I regretted 'synopsis' almost from the beginning, but was somewhat intimidated by the 'move' procedure, though I've done it now a few times. Thanks for your help and comments. Anthony.Sebastian 14:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Query about Vesalius

Anthony: I do not have access to the book you use as source for the idea that Vesalius succeeded where Galen did not because of the more liberal access to cadavers in Vesalius time. See my inquiry about this matter. It appears likely that there was a reduced restriction in Vesalius' time. One might consider that Galen might have succeeded too in Vesalius' place, but the way this is stated suggests that it was a piece of cake for Vesalius because of the reduced restrictions.

There is also a lot of literature including some of very recent date that take the view that censorship was a problem for Vesalius. I have found it hard to determine whether what we have here is simply the repeating of tales heard at a mother's knee, or something more accurate.

Can you help? John R. Brews 19:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Will review this matter, John. Anthony.Sebastian 05:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Randomized control trial

Anthony, you have supported the re-approval of Randomized controlled trial. According to the new approval process you should do so with a (short) referee's report on the approval page. Then the Approval Manager (Joe) can accept and certify the approval. --Peter Schmitt 12:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Anthony.Sebastian 20:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Leibniz alert

Greetings Anthony. Just alerting you that being an admirer of Leibniz I will most certainly add substantial content to the Leibniz page. My contribution would most likely be limited to philosophical topics in Leibniz since his writings are so far-flung and given that I am no mathematician and could not do justice to those areas of his thought. :]

Maria, Leibniz can use all the help he gets. Anthony.Sebastian 03:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Move

Hello, Anthony, I've just noticed your request to Matt, who hasn't been around recently. To Move an article, just click on the Move tab at the top of the page and follow the instructions. HTH. Ro Thorpe 01:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ro, you did not notice that it is an approved article that is protected against edits -- and moves. --Peter Schmitt 02:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, no, I didn't go to the page. Anyway, all's well... Ro Thorpe 13:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm here! I moved all of your pages (I hope). The 'move all subpages' feature did not work this time, so I had to move them by hand and delete the redirects. Double check me, especially making sure that I moved all the subpages, and let me know if I missed anything (I don't do it often enough to remember it myself!).
I am always around, especially if you leave a message on my talk page, because it emails me (which I check most often throughout the day). D. Matt Innis 03:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Matt. I checked; everything copacetic. Sorry you had to do everything in separate steps. Anthony.Sebastian 14:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Lactation article edits

Anthony thanks so much for the lactation article edits. Sure do appreciate the help and collaboration. Been a long time since my biology classes so I hope I remembered everything right. What got me to thinking about this subject as there was a recent "nurse in" after a woman was asked to nurse in a fitting room. At least that's what the news report state. At Amazon there's been a heated discussion about nursing in public which lead to me thinking which lead to this article. Thanks again! Mary Ash 05:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Mary, a good article for CZ. Many aspects of interest, both from the social and natural sciences. Thanks for getting it started.
My interest gravitates toward the metabolism/physiology aspects, an evolutionary perspective.
Regarding breastfeeding in public, I remember Milton Berl's joke about a woman walking down the street unaware she had one breast exposed. When Berl called her attention to it, she responded shocked and horrified, "Oh my God. I left my baby on the bus."
Anthony.Sebastian 17:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

ASIMO approval

Hello. Do you think it would be okay to ask User:Daniel M. Lofaro who helped with HUBO's approval to see if everything is all right with the article, and then have an engineering editor approve the article? I think Daniel is fit to be an editor in robotics. (Chunbum Park 06:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC))

Hello. I was wondering why ASIMO article has not been approved yet despite the notice which says it will be approved on March 1. I think the article is eady for approval now. (Chunbum Park 11:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC))

Re-approval of Boiling point/Draft

Tony, please see the last section that I just posted on the Talk page of the subject article. It is in regard to how long this is taking and the lack of any truly expert comments. Best regards, Milton Beychok 19:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Milton, I tried to nominate it for approval yesterday, but had problems with getting the ToApprove notice up. I asked Peter Schmitt for help, as I am not completely familiar with the approval mechanics yet. Awaiting his reply.
The changes made since I first commented on the article satisfy my concerns. —Anthony.Sebastian 20:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Tony. I will wait. Milton Beychok 21:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I have added an image of a boiling point diagram into the last section of Boiling point/Draft for approval, where such a diagram is mentioned. Milton Beychok approves of this addition to the article as evidenced on my Talk page User talk:Henry A. Padleckas at the current bottom of the page. Can you please approve with the added diagram? Thank you. Henry A. Padleckas 08:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Tony, I am perfectly okay with Henry's diagram. Last night, I said that I was in agreement with including it in the current re-approval (see the "Approval mechanics" section of Talk:Boiling point/Draft) and I urged him to contact you as soon as he could, which he did. Milton Beychok 03:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the article about Canadian vs. American copyright law and its author Patrick Nikulak.

Tony, when I was an Editorial Personnel Administrator, I saw this happen a number of times. Someone would join CZ and write an article (or sometimes 2-3 articles) and then disappear completely ... making it obvious that he/she had joined us with an agenda to write about some pet subject.

According to Patrick's "User Contributions", on March 13th he wrote his article about Canadian copyright law and then he disappeared completely for the next two weeks. I doubt that we will ever hear from him again.

I strongly suggest that the Approval process for his article be completely abandoned and removed from the green banner we all see at the top of our watchlists. Milton Beychok 15:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Milton, I agree. Completely. Thanks for keeping surveillance. Anthony.Sebastian 23:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

About Air Resources Laboratory

Hi, Tony: Based on your comments on my Talk page about the Air Resources Laboratory (ARL) article, I have now:

  • fixed all of the references and updated them,
  • added a new section entitled "Organization" along with a diagram of the organizational structure,
  • and added a "Gallery" subpage with 7 images (photos and a diagram) of the types of equipment used by NOAA and the ARL.

I just wanted to let you know that your comments prodded me into improving the article somewhat ... although I still don't believe it is worthy of Approval. Thanks, Milton Beychok 05:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Milton. I shall prod again, then, until you improve it to Approval eligibility, unless you tell me that to accomplish that would take enormous amount of work. It only has to be accurate, informative, heuristic, remember, not exhaustive or even comprehensive (both of which will always fall short of their ideal).
CZ needs more Approved articles.
Though, I would not be surprised to learn I am CZ's biggest sinner of not finishing articles started. I absolve myself with the thought that when the experts come flooding in they'll get working on them, and the thought that I've let my curiosity-birthright, a type of attention-deficit phenomenon, though more mature than my toddler days, predominate over my peak capacity to focus and concentrate my efforts. Of course I did plenty of that focusing bit for 50 years.
I find it difficult to put articles I contributed into Approval consideration because I realize I can improve it if I work on it more. Anthony.Sebastian 20:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Economics

A day late but I got it done! D. Matt Innis 00:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Matt, again. It does not need same-day processing. I'm sure you have many things to do on your list. Anthony.Sebastian 03:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Op-Ed in the NY Times

Hi Anthony:

You may recall our efforts with Reality and Hawking's and Mlodinow's book. The Sunday NY Times has an op-ed piece by Jim Holt in his column Gray Matter called "Physicists, stop the churlishness" that covers some of this topic. He mentions attitudes by Penrose, Feynman, and a recent battle between David Albert and Lawrence Krauss (the mystery of the universe's existence).

Maybe there is something here that could improve Reality? John R. Brews 15:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Draft decision on Approval process

Hi Anthony: I am presently unclear about where things stand regarding the approval draft decision. Has it been shelved? Is a replacement under consideration? What is your present understanding of the process and its value? John R. Brews 19:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


John: It has not been shelved. I am preparing a note to Peter Schmitt with my understanding of the Approval Process. If a replacement emerges it will emerge from that, and Peter's responses.
As to the value of having Approved Articles, that's a separate issue, which I will discuss separately.
As for your many fine draft articles, we need to consider them and see we can do to give them a chance to be approved. I have been musing over that already. Anthony.Sebastian 20:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Free will

Anthony: I think you might have some interest in the article Free will. I have made a number of changes there, but it remains unsatisfactory. Perhaps you could assist? John R. Brews 15:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

John: Thanks for the invitation. Too tempting to resist, both the topic and the opportunity to colloquy with you.
What you've done has much improved the discussion of the issues involved, including some astute explication (e.g., how randomness doesn't help the cause of the "free willists"). We presumably have no control over when and how the atoms 'swerve'.
Perhaps as Dennett says, we have some elbow room, that there are varieties of free will worth having. And from a sophisticated evolutionary perspective, what follows? Free will, or not, aren't we dealing with biology, and is it not true that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution", though the light needed may be outside the visible band of the spectrum.
The role of speech?
I'll review my key books before digging in. —Anthony.Sebastian 21:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Anthony:
I look forward to your contributions. After my experience with this article, I am inclined to understand the human as a form of intelligent robot, and understand consciousness as command center that focuses on narrow slices of observed data to illuminate particular issues as they arise, and directs action based upon optimization routines it has learned during its evolution and fleshes out during its lifetime. John R. Brews 15:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
John:
I, too, view humans as "intelligent robots", but I conceive the "command center" residing in the unconscious, where some 98% of human thinking occurs, continually sending instructions to the conscious mind, which interprets them as its own conscious rational decisions. Keith Stanovich has written many books/articles about that. My favorite:
The Robot's Rebellion: Finding Meaning in the Age of Darwin.
Keith E. Stanovich
University of Chicago Press, Oct 15, 2005 - Philosophy - 374 pages
"The idea that we might be robots is no longer the stuff of science fiction; decades of research in evolutionary biology and cognitive science have led many esteemed thinkers and scientists to the conclusion that, following the precepts of universal Darwinism, humans are merely the hosts for two replicators (genes and memes) that have no interest in us except as conduits for replication. Accepting and now forcefully responding to this disturbing idea that precludes the possibilities of morality or free will, among other things, Keith Stanovich here provides the tools for the "robot's rebellion," a program of cognitive reform necessary to advance human interests over the limited interest of the replicators. He shows how concepts of rational thinking from cognitive science interact with the logic of evolution to create opportunities for humans to structure their behavior to serve their own ends. These evaluative activities of the brain, he argues, fulfill the need that we have to ascribe significance to human life. Only by recognizing ourselves as robots, argues Stanovich, can we begin to construct a concept of self based on what is truly singular about humans: that they gain control of their lives in a way unique among life forms on Earth—through rational self-determination."
Daniel Hahneman speaks to that also, in Thinking, fast and slow.
Other books: "Incognito", "Who's in Charge?" Anthony.Sebastian 16:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Anthony: I'll have to look into these books which are unfamiliar to me. It seems clear that the unconscious mind does a lot of processing, maybe analogous to the eye which also does a lot of processing the conscious mind is not aware of, including narrow-band filtering and statistical analysis, apparently providing a subset of information determined useful by evolutionary events and sufficiently concise that the conscious mind can handle. So what is the role of consciousness then? Is there some need for oversight, to weight various alternative long-time responses and select the best? The weighting mechanism itself is subject to development and evolution, but perhaps with the aid of society and reflection it can guide its program of development to a degree? Maybe I'll glean some answers from the reading you have suggested. John R. Brews 16:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Anthony: I've added a number of links to the The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The article contains references to robot intelligence and to complementarity that are missing from most discussions, so its got something to add to the subject. Animal behavior and Darwinism also should be discussed more. As one might anticipate for a topic that has survived for millenia, Free will is complex and the present article still is a shambles. John R. Brews 16:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
John, I haven't had time yet to join in, but I have started re-reading Gazzaniga's Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain, at bedtime, on my Kindle. Very impressive. Anthony.Sebastian 03:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Anthony: I am happy that you are still planning to attack this topic. I have not read Gazzaniga except for excerpts. I also read this interview which introduces the "emergent mind" concept. I am left feeling that there is a confusion here between microscopic description (like on a quantum scale) and a more macroscopic description that is given some mystical precedence. The description of chemistry on the basis of the Standard model is perhaps possible in principle, but no-one would attempt it, with some chemistry described using atomic models and some using even larger objects (like DNA). What is happening is easier to grasp using one model than another, but that is an expression of the mind's limitations, not that the underlying phenomena have found a deeper explanation with the higher level models. So the problem of free will remains murky, although it's clear that it isn't completely free. If we can show that consciousness is a hardware related function of complex networks that is coincident with feelings of being able to make a decision, I think we still will have the issue of deciding whether ant hills are forever to be subject to chance encounters with anteaters unless accidental discovery programs a solution, or can the hill actually make decisions that evolve defenses? Can education improve society, or is that another delusion? Is all we do is to repeat the past until some monkey types Shakespeare whereupon we can progress?
I am reminded that scientists are thought of by the general public as odd balls (which they are) and their discoveries are looked upon as the serendipitous results of crazy people that actually come up with something once and a while, largely as a the result of their odd natures leading them into crevices where normal people don't look. Scientists don't decide to become scientists; they are born that way, and sometimes actually find a niche in which to do science. These niches may be created by society, but niche creation is programmed into society in the same way as the birth of the scientists themselves is programmed? John R. Brews 04:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
John, should we move this section to Free will's Talk page? That might attract other interested parties. I don't feel committed to that, however.
I think it will take a society more informed than we are today before our conscious thinking—<5% of our total thinking—recognizes deeply the illusion of free will. I have not received a memo from my non-conscious thinking committee with anything enlightening. If I once had free will, my wife preempted it 48 years ago. Anthony.Sebastian 19:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I also hope that much will be learned if we survive long enough. What I'd like to understand is how one can function like the Stoics, sure in the belief that all is preordained, and yet simultaneously find value in a moral imperative to think through one's decisions.

I'd like to draw your attention to the Charlie Rose brain series Part II.

Let's defer using the Talk page until we can discuss the article content. John R. Brews 21:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Emergence

I've run across a discussion of emergence here, a concept that apparently originates with Kim (Mind in a Physical World 1998 and Physicalism, or something near enough 2005). The argument is, for example, "a neural assembly consisting of many thousands of neurons will have properties whose causal powers go beyond the causal powers of the properties of its constituents neurons, or subassemblies, and human beings have causal powers that none of our individual organs have". This may be a game involving the definition of "cause". The idea seems to me to be like this: a hot gas can burn you, but the idea of "hot" doesn't apply to an individual atom, but only to an assembly of atoms, so the gas has causal powers not shared by its constituents. I think this is mistaken thinking, as the process of burning me could be analyzed at a microscopic level in terms of individual atoms without introducing the ideas of heat or temperature that apply to ensembles of atoms. John R. Brews 06:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I was mistaken above in suggesting Kim originated the idea of emergence: he only has discussed it. My example of burning myself resembles a claim by Popper:

"Any change in the higher level (temperature) will thus influence the lower level (the movement of the individual atoms). The one-sided dominance [of higher on lower levels of matter] is due … to the random character of the heat motions of the atoms…. For it seems that were the universe per impossible a perfect determinist clockwork, there would be no layers and therefore no such dominating influence would occur."

Although it is rash of me to attack this position by a respected thinker, IMO Popper's remarks reflect a complete misunderstanding of the role of statistics in describing events. Statistical averages like temperature may characterize ensembles, but they do not cause anything. John R. Brews 16:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a clear (but IMO, completely crazy) statement of emergence:

"Emergent laws are fundamental; they are irreducible to laws characterizing properties at lower levels of complexity, even given ideal information as to boundary conditions." Stanford Encyclopedia.

I bring all this up because it seems pertinent to your reading of The Robot's Rebellion. John R. Brews 16:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

After reading through a few of the dozens of articles on the Stanford Encyclopedia, I am left feeling that a lot of hair-splitting has been done by many philosophers to no end. The answers to this question are more likely to arise from AI and neuroscience than from abstract arguments over hypotheticals that never actually arise. From the stance of an evolutionary robot, programmed goals are sought by an algorithm modifiable by experience. The status of the algorithm may be perceptible by the robot, and the processing of information leading to reprogramming may involve activities that appear to it as conscious deliberation. It is much like a programmer watching his algorithm process some inputs, and in this case he can change the program to better achieve his goals. The ways the program can be changed depend upon some limitations of the programming language and some options may not be pursued because the programmer is so versed in Fortran that he can't think in other languages. So some changes can be made, constituting free will, but others cannot.

Care to help me out here, Anthony? John R. Brews 16:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

After writing this I ran into a programming analogy. "...view it as a set of capabilities and features that interconnect to form Consciousness. ...One can think of each of them as an "object" that has a specific set of capabilities and features. These objects have a "mini-program" inside them that specifies their behavior and how they hook up....The hooks are variable and dynamic. The time evolution of the Consciousness from state to state is a result of execution of these "mini-programs' in a dynamic ever-changing way. There is no overall program but instead there is an ever changing dynamic unfolding of states of Consciousness in response to external inputs and based on the previous state of Consciousness plus random effects within Consciousness..." and so on.

Some of this may not stand up to close analysis of the definitions of the terms used. Later a connection with Object-Oriented Programming is suggested.

Mentioned to show that something like this kind of explanation is in the air. John R. Brews 19:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

John, I emailed you the excerpt on 'emergence' in Gazzaniga's book. I'd love to help out, but ME duties keeping me business right now. Have you looked at Emergence (biology) for my 'first draft' thoughts on 'emergence'? Anthony.Sebastian 22:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Anthony: I've considerably rewritten Emergence (biology) at this juncture, and it departs significantly from its original form in introducing several types of emergence, of which strong emergence was the point of view previously, and weak emergence was not given attention.
There are some "dangling chads" in the article even so. Even if one has a reductionist stance, that everything can be taken back to individual subsystem behavior in principle, it seems that much of system control and numerical mathematical algorithms make use of the cooperative description of multiple levels and their interconnections and feedback to each other to obtain an efficient modeling of complex systems. So it may be moot that one could (in principle) calculate the properties of DNA based upon quarks using the Standard Model, because one would never imagine that was a sensible undertaking, nor would one be able to understand the results of the calculation beyond the data spewed out as the solution to an individual problem on a case-by-case basis. John R. Brews 21:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Dangling Chads

←Hi John: You have greatly improved Emergence (biology), in depth and scope.

I cannot discredit the use of the word, emergence, to describe properties (or qualities, functions, behaviors) of a dynamic complicated system of interacting describably distinct components when someone applies the word to behavior of the system they consider unexpected and surprising and when they had not predicted it from what they knew about the organization of the interacting components.

If no one can provide a satisfactory explanation for that here-to-fore unexpected behavior, that does not mean the future holds none. We do not know how long that future will extend for us. It seems, then, that we must reject propositions of systems emergent behavior as unpredictable in principle.

In practice, from the organization of the system and that of the environment embedding it, one might generate a correct prediction of the system’s behavior as one among countless incorrect predictions, but we would not consider that a satisfactory solution.

How would one have predicted the aromatic quality of benzene from the organization of its constituent atoms, whose properties differ in their organizational state than in their elementary state, and alter as we probe them?

Does that re-express some of your points? Anthony.Sebastian 03:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The question of predicting the aromatic nature of benzene may be a toughie, but as you say, once the issue is raised, it may well be that it will become a predictable item as our models of the molecule and the nose improve. Even so, the concepts involved in fashioning an aromatic compound and in describing its interpretation in the brain as aromatic are probably higher level or macro concepts that will illuminate the matter much better for our limited brains than looking at thousands of pages of computer print-out detailing the interaction between massive atomic systems.
The power of effective concepts is the real value of emergence, which I see more as the emergence of vocabulary that efficiently describes things and aids our limited capacity for intuition.
There is a variety of emergent properties, and the way they relate to micro-systems vary as as well: some can be stand-alone, and some supplement micro-theories and make them more effective. We seem to agree that there is no need to emphasize the success or failure of reducing emergent properties to lower level behaviors. The reducibility issue is one aspect of the topic of free will and whether aspects of consciousness are actually under our control, or are reducible to sub-system behavior. I've not figured out how to handle that one. John R. Brews 15:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Anthony, the article has now been written from several perspectives and it lacks a smooth development. I think it would benefit greatly from an overhaul by yourself that might organize the various topics logically in an evolving narrative. John R. Brews 16:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
John, I agree the article needs a coherent, graceful narrative flow. I'd probably need to set aside at least a week to draft that for your review. I'll do my best to find that week.
You say it well: "The power of effective concepts is the real value of emergence, which I see more as the emergence of vocabulary that efficiently describes things and aids our limited capacity for intuition."
I've tried to handle the consciousness issue by avoiding the nominalization, focusing instead on the activity of conscious experiencing, then trying to explain the activity of experiencing consciously at the physiological level of narrative explanation. That provides a different starting point for a study of the neuronal correlates. I have the beginning of a draft essay elaborating the approach which I'll send you when I finish. Anthony.Sebastian 20:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Lagrangian mechanics

Hi Anthony: As you may be aware the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations of mechanics are based upon variational principles: the evolution of a system is found by requiring some global quantity be minimized subject to certain constraints. That is the basis even of the Standard model. The minimization can be expressed in terms of the equations of motion of the system, which could turn out to be Schrodinger's equation, for example, or the equations of fluid mechanics, for another example. The Lagrangian function depends upon microscopic variables, the generalized coordinates, and interactions between the coordinates are introduced as additional terms.

It strikes me that the philosophy here is reminiscent of the ideas of emergence in that the system is forced to evolve subject to global constraints. Depending upon the system, the evolution may take on a bland uniform pattern, or a complicated one.

In effect this approach assumes the system has "goals" like minimizing its energy or maximizing its entropy or whatever. I wonder whether and how this connection might be incorporated in the article? John R. Brews 14:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Anthony: I have continued to add to Free will, and presently the view of the article is that free will is partially an empirical matter regarding just how complex systems work, and partially a semantic issue about finding useful concepts to describe the situation. Although the broad outline of the issues goes back to the early Greeks, there is much detail that needs to be worked out even today.
Your help in fashioning this article remains most desirable. John R. Brews 17:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
John, you are too gracious. Believe me, nothing excites my mind more than working on challenging writing projects, especially in collaboration with you. But somehow I've got myself doing two administrative jobs for Citizendium that, at least for the near future, preclude me from doing much in the way of content work.
I do like the idea of a ‘quality’ emerging from mathematical fundamentals.
You might find this article and its references of interest: http://ttic.uchicago.edu/~smale/papers/math-of-emergence.pdf.
I will eventually jump into Free will, after much more study of your article and references. Emergence (biology), too. Anthony.Sebastian 22:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


Viking longships

Thanks for adding that image, the article really needed one. There's a photo of the Sea Stallion, but I was hoping for an image of an actual longship rather than a replica. Thanks again, Richard Nevell 11:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Please see my talk page

Hi, Anthony. Milton needs an reapproval. Can you take a look at my talk page and see what needs to happen. I'm thinking that the approval manager needs to work this through. D. Matt Innis 16:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Will Certify tomorrow, 26th, to allow for Citizen add'l copyedits, per EC rules. Anthony.Sebastian 19:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Anthony, the Air pollution dispersion terminology article was to be re-approved on the September 26th. Just a reminder. Milton Beychok 14:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Image question

Hi, I've uploaded an image with can't be used commercially but still has a creative commons licence, File:Pantheon, 2009.jpg. I just wanted to check this is ok as there appears to be a warning box at the bottom of the photo's description (ie: "Notice of CC-by-sa incompatibility"). Thanks, Richard Nevell 20:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Please excuse me for intruding here. That notice of incompatibility appears on dozens of images being used in CZ ... and I have never really understood: (1) what it is saying and (2) why it is needed at all.
I also noted that the credit line for the Pantheon image had not been created ... so I went ahead and created the credit line. Regards, Milton Beychok 22:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for creating the credit line, the incompatibility notice stopped me in my tracks as I was doing it; I thought if I'd made a mistake by uploading the image there was no point doing the credit line. The notice still has me a little confused but if we can use it it's a nice busy photo. Richard Nevell 18:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Requesting a Move/Rename?

Anthony, How do I get a page renamed? The South Vietnamese Buddhist crisis and coup of 1963 is actually two articles and I've started splitting them. One was easy enough. I created the South Vietnamese Coup (1963) and moved content there. The South Vietnamese Buddhist crisis and coup of 1963 should now be either moved or renamed to South Vietnamese Buddhist crisis (1963) (to differentiate it from the Buddhist crisis of 1966--which should also probably be renamed, but that's a different story). Thanks. Russell D. Jones 22:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Russell, that requires a 'Move' maneuver, which I am not skilled at. Suggest contacting Matt Innis. Anthony.Sebastian 23:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Scientific method

I see that you have made a number of changes to Scientific method which, because it is an "approved" article, can only be done on Scientific method/Draft. I've got a couple of questions for you:

  1. Why is there no discussion of these changes on a Talk page?
  2. What is your notion of whether these changes will become a new version of the approved article?

An unrelated matter is the content of this article.

IMO, which could be supported in part by some recent books (Big science, little science, The trouble with physics, Not even wrong: the failure of string theory..) some science (maybe string theory, maybe multiverses) is approaching the situation where there is reason to question whether the theory used to build observational apparatus and interpret results begs the question of whether a real test has been performed. Also, tests of a theory become so expensive and so arcane they require multinational commitments to construct an observational apparatus (a hadron collider or a Hubble telescope). That being so, the enterprise is threatened by (i) competition for funding by other needs of society, and (ii) observations so remote from everyday experience that one might ask whether such theories have real implications, or are merely pursuits of expensive clubs built for people with odd ideas of how they should spend their lives.

Is that pertinent to this article?

John R. Brews 21:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Site notice

Hi Anthony, I noticed that a small circle has appeared on the top left of every Citizendium page (in the lighter grey part). Is this intentional? If it isn't, I think it's because a character was added to the start of MediaWiki:Sitenotice [1]. Richard Nevell 10:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Right on, Richard. I found it precisely where you predicted, and I gleefully exterminated it. Thanks. Anthony.Sebastian 03:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your kind words, which I have followed up. As for the Forums thing, I would pay more attention if other people seemed to use them more often. As it is, there seem to be long temporal gaps after many of the last contributions. (I suppose that non-use on those grounds is self-perpetuating.) Also, it took me a while to realise I had to have a separate sign-in, and I am not clear how to start a new thread.

One other niggle: The CZ notice on the Welcome page is kept up to date (more or less), but whenever one goes to a subject page, the CZ notice on that is the one for the time it was last updated. Surely it is better not to have a notice there than to have one that is out of date, possibly by years. --Martin Wyatt 18:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin. Odd, I don't have that 'site-notice page-discrepancy' with the usual popular browsers (IE10, FFx, Chrome) with my Win7 desktop. I'll keep checking. Sometimes I'm late updating, but there should not be a discrepancy between the Welcome page and other pages. Hmm... Anthony.Sebastian 22:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Pompeii

Hello Anthony, is there any chance we can finish with Pompeii? Thanks. Russell D. Jones 21:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Russell. Will check, let you know. Anthony.Sebastian 03:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Editable 'Main Articles' and Approved-Locked 'Citable Articles'.

Hi Anthony:

There are a couple of observations I'd like to make about this draft resolution of yours.

First, it appears to suggest "all articles to open as editable Main Articles". I assume this to mean editable by CZ members and not the public at large?

The main suggestion, as I understand it, is to change the present policy of locked approved versions to instead a policy of locked citable versions and editable versions that are the default first access to an article.

I think that is a good idea, because it will encourage changes to articles that presently are nearly impossible for 'approved' articles because of red tape, unavailability of original authors whose approval is needed, and general reluctance by originating authors to see their work altered in any way. If I have understood the proposal, I support it. John R. Brews 13:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, John, you understand the referendum. The red tape will still be there for the 'Citable Version', but readers won't see that automatically. If the Main Article is editable, it may induce more readers to join Citizendium so they can edit it. As you say, it will "encourage changes" plus encourage joining. Anthony.Sebastian 18:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

.

What to be done about this?

What should be done about this, which is a rewritten version of this? John Stephenson 21:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

John, the article on what happened to Citizendium does not seem to me to be an encyclopedia- type entry. I would move it to CZ namespace. Also, I do not find it very informative. The author has not been an active contributor and in particular has made no encyclopedia article edits or starts, so I don't think he is truly into what's happening at Citizendium. We might want to consider removing the article entirely. What do you think? Anthony.Sebastian 05:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
It could be deleted or, with some effort, a de-snarked and corrected version could be placed under Citizendium/Activity, just as the original appears at Wikipedia/Activity. John Stephenson 09:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Your second option sounds good to me. We just need to find a de-snarker and corrector to do the job. It would be great is Aleksander Stos would do that. Shall we bring him into the discussion? Anthony.Sebastian 22:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I've moved it to Citizendium/Activity and will let him know. John Stephenson 15:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I've looked at this. Well, de-snarking would mean simply replacing it with a more informative/objective analysis. More precisely, I think it is hopeless to incrementally edit the present text, the overall tone is quite unencyclopedic (more like a polemic essay) and I would feel compelled to change almost every sentence.
That said, its language is indeed modeled on the Wikipedia/Activity article. One has impression that the Author [Linden] didn't like the Wikipedia/Activity article and produced an obviously unacceptable analogue to make a point. While I strongly disagree with such a method (BTW explicitly forbidden in Wikipedia), I do think the original Wikipedia/Activity article, while way more informative, factual, and rooted in the real scientific research, has a quite apparent bias against Wikipedia.
In my opinion, a proper action would be to deal with the Wikipedia/Activity first. Then, I'd remark that the activity of Citizendium is not as notable subject as that of Wikipedia (e.g. little to no external scientific references). Accordingly, I would be tempted to replace the present CZ/Activity essay by a relatively short summary of our activity (not necessarily that different in some points). Putting it on my todo, not sure however how fast this could be done (I permanently lack the time). But, after all, this is a wiki. Cheers, Aleksander Stos 12:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Having looked at it more closely, it appears unsalvageable. The main problems, apart from the snarkiness, are that it states that the reasons for the decline are unknown (i.e. it is uninformative) and that it bases the discussion on general links to CZ forums and RationalWiki's article on CZ (which can change and is written anonymously), rather than specific data points, and so does not precisely back up any claims (as Aleksander says, there is little rigorous study of CZ's performance out there). There is also the specific error that CZ Editors "own" articles. May as well move it to user space. John Stephenson 18:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm in favor of the move to userspace. Anthony.Sebastian 21:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, done and move-locked. A sysop can move back a revised version. John Stephenson 21:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Signed Articles

Anthony, where are you with the "Signed Article" change? It appears that, if authors are willing to receive and respond to comments, there can be a kind of peer-review process. The key would be knowing the qualifications of the people making the comment ... kind of a novel idea to have peer review visible to the public and that remains part of the article's history. Thomas Butler 00:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2014 election

You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2014 election. Please visit this page to accept or decline each position. No action will also be treated as declining. If you accept, you may choose to write an election statement for each position - see the election page for further details. Alternatively, contact me via my Talk page or privately via e-mail. Regards, John Stephenson 13:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Homeostasis

Anthony, I added to the subsection Homeostasis (biology)#Scope of homeostasis. You might take a look and see if it is what you had in mind. John R. Brews 15:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Author Representative Comments on Forum Communications

On Sunday, August 17, 2014, I knowingly and intentionally deleted my Forum account. Constabulary promptly notified me that this would prevent me from having access to some areas of the Forum reserved for Council business. Appreciating that this action could be misconstrued, I want to make it clear that I wish to fulfill my duties as Author Representative, but I will not do so in the Forum. I am unaware of any reason why participating in the Forum should be required for performing the duties of Author Representative. So, it seems prudent to bring this to your attention for consideration in the event the Council wishes to include me in a vote.

Why have I taken this action? My experience has been that Forum deliberations are dominated by a very small group of persons. This almost certainly serves as a disincentive for participation by others. (It has this effect for me.) I have also come to appreciate that I am not comfortable using private channels for Council activities which other "citizens" cannot monitor. To this end, I have created a Council Communications section on my talk page where my votes or thoughts can be transparently recorded and easily found should they be requested. If they are not, that will say something too. Christine Bush 18:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anthony, I just wanted to share with Council colleagues (and I have communicated with Gareth, Peter also) some additional thoughts about my recent decision to delete my Forum account.

Motion Regarding Special Pages

Anthony, I would like to suggest that Council request modifications to articles being developed in the User: space, or "sandbox" pages, not be listed on the Special:RecentChanges because it defeats the purpose of providing authors with an area where we can develop ideas prior to creating or modifying an article. These are functionally only potential changes. As I have not been provided with any instructions on how to initiate a motion, I'm posting it here. Christine Bush 20:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Christine, on the Recent Changes page, in 'Namespace' box, select 'Main', then 'GO' at right. See if that gives you what you want. Anthony.Sebastian 21:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Anthony, thanks for pointing out this feature. To be clear, I am proposing a change in functionality that will affect all wiki visitors and users---not just me. I am suggesting that both the User: and User_talk: namespaces should be removed altogether from the Recent Changes page options and results. The functional effect is that any and all pages in the User: or User_talk: namespaces will no longer display or be found via the Recent Changes page. (It should be fairly trivial to implement if Council approved the idea. A casual code inspection of the page source suggests only two options with values of 2 and 3 could be removed from the form select element with name "namespace." The default query that runs when the page first loads would also need to be updated.) Christine Bush 03:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You can put your proposal before the Council here. I'll copy it to the appropriate Council Board on the Citizendium Forums. BTW: I do work on my word processor if I don't want it revealed until completed. Anthony.Sebastian 03:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Would people still be able to put such pages on their watchlists? Peter Jackson 09:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Peter. Yes, one should absolutely still be able to add them to a watchlist and otherwise do all the things one has been able to do or would expect. This proposal is a small change to the functionality of the Recent Changes page only, not to any pages in the User: or User_talk: namespaces or their existing functionality.
My primary rationale for this suggestion are: 1) to assure the items displayed on Recent Changes are representative of contributions being made to article content, which I believe is what one expects to see when visiting this page; 2) to indirectly encourage participation by eliminating entries on the Recent Changes page which may have the effect of inflating activity; 3) to better encourage participation by way of providing more privacy, both for work on article content and for discussions which might otherwise happen off-wiki; 4) make it more difficult for those without the best interest of CZ in mind to monitor contributor activities not directly related to content, i.e. our business. You and others may well be able to think of more effects. Christine Bush 17:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Word Processing vs. Wiki Processing

Hi Anthony, thank you for this procedural assistance. I applaud the practice of working on a word processor, and totally encourage contributors to spell check, grammar check, and backup their work.
I suspect that you also appreciate that there are also many good reasons for working in the sandbox. Some which come to mind are: ease of formatting content for wiki syntax and layout; practice using wiki syntax; the ability to post drafts for sharing and comment from multiple users (without the overhead of version control) prior to inclusion under "Main article"; production of content that is non-proprietary, easy to exchange/interchange, and ready to use on a wiki; ease of editing content ported to CZ from other wikis; the ability to work on an article from multiple locations or different computers without having to carry your draft with you (although, word processing in the cloud via Google Docs, Evernote, etc. seems to be becoming more commonplace and makes this last reason a bit more ephemeral---all the more reason to reinforce CZ as friendly, convenient cloud destination for working and thinking); work in the sandboxes is presumably being backed up regularly and becomes part of the project's knowledgebase even in incomplete/draft form.
In other words, word processing is not wiki processing. This goes to my election statement in which I said that I thought CZ needs to better come to terms with its "core identity". CZ should be what it is: a wiki. Christine Bush 17:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Christine, Yes, I appreciate the value of sandboxes; I have numerous sandboxes that I use for different purposes.
But since you can eliminate their appearance on the Recent Changes Page by selecting the Main namespace, I see no reason to eliminate the functionality of their appearance when selecting the All namespaces choice on the Recent Changes Page. Indeed, there are many good reasons to allow recent changes to show user talk pages and sandbox activity, which I will not go into here.
The only reason I suggested using a word processor for preliminary work was because I suspected that you wanted to keep your sandbox work secret. I do that sometimes. But mostly I use one of my sandboxes for preliminary work. Anthony.Sebastian 21:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: EAP status

Anthony, I resigned as EAP. If my temporary appointment to that role was worthy of listing on the CZ:Council page it seems like my resignation from it should be, too. Christine Bush 20:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Anthony.Sebastian 21:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Council members' votes on proposal to move forums to the CZ wiki

proposal

Council members:

Enter your vote (yes/no) below with your four tilde signature. Anthony.Sebastian 00:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Two yes votes constitutes a majority, therefore the motion passes. Anthony.Sebastian 18:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Referendum 3

Thanks for your support and for picking up the error; I've switched it to 14 days. Unfortunately, I see this as a significant change, so have to ask you to sign again at User:ElectionJune2015/Referenda. Thanks. John Stephenson (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2016 election

You've been nominated as a candidate for the post of Managing Editor in the June 2016 election. Please visit this page to accept or decline. No action will also be treated as declining. If you accept, you may choose to write an election statement - see the election page for further details. Alternatively, contact me via my Talk page or privately via e-mail. Regards, John Stephenson (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2016 election

You've been nominated as a candidate for the Citizendium Council in the June 2016 election. Please visit this page to accept or decline. No action will also be treated as declining. If you accept, you may choose to write an election statement - see the election page for further details. Alternatively, contact me via my Talk page or privately via e-mail. Regards, John Stephenson (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Cowdray House

Hello Anthony, in case you missed it I left a comment you might want to respond to at Forum Talk:Non-member Comments and Suggestions on Approvals#Cowdray House. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, would you be open to discussing the Cowdray House article? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
HEllo, it's the dim and distant past now but would you be able to comment at the above forum? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Anthony

With sadness I must notify the community that our friend and colleague Anthony passed away last year. He served this project with distinction, first as an expert Editor and then as its managerial lead. He was a great help and support to me personally and I'm sure to many of you. Some links here and here.

Goodbye, Anthony, and thank you. John Stephenson (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I see he was still contributing here just 9 days before his death. Peter Jackson (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)