User talk:Daniel Mietchen

 Where Daniel lives it is approximately: 10:46

Notes to self

here

Talk space

Archives

Daniel Mietchen

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7

speedy deletes and nick gardner

Hi, Daniel,

Apparently you and Nick are not in agreement with about 5 speedy delete requests. Please come to a meeting of the minds with him over this and let me know what to do. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 17:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This section heading alarms me. Please do not speedydelete Nick. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not speedy Nick — I simply moved "Bad bank"/Definition to Bad bank/Definition and speedied the former (i.e. the one with quotes in the title, which does not fit with naming conventions). I explained this to him both on the talk page and in the speedy template and send him an email. I also explained to him how he can have quotes displayed around the page title without the page actually having them in the page title, and I think he will consent to the speedy once he is back. As for the other ones, they were transclusions, and I think I have kicked them off the speedy list now. --Daniel Mietchen 19:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

righto, the others are now gone. I'll wait on the Bad Bank till he signs off on it. Hayford Peirce 19:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Higher education

Hi, Daniel, yup, that looks fine. Even makes some sense. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 22:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What do think of Earth's atmosphere?

Hi, Daniel. I noticed that you signed as a specialist supporter of Earth's atmosphere. Have you read the entire article? If so, I would be pleased to learn what you think of it. Milton Beychok 06:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Milt, I had read it before signing up but didn't have the time to edit or comment in detail. Will do so soon, hopefully. --Daniel Mietchen 10:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Active/Inactive

Daniel, ich habe den Code angeschaut und verstehe wohl das meiste. Allerdings:

1. So wie ich ihn lese, hätte er beim zweiten Durchgang aus "Inactive * Editors" "Inactive Inactive * Editors" machen müssen.
2. Wenn das nicht der Fall war, dann müßte meine Modifikation User:Peter Schmitt/Code eigentlich auch das Zurücksetzen schaffen (wenn auch nicht unbedingt auf die effizienteste Art).
3. Allerdings weiß ich nicht, wie ich ihn laufen lassen kann (es gibt ja eine debug und eine interaktive Option).
4. Übrigens: Er testet nur den ersten Teil der Bedingung - 3 Monate inaktiv, nicht die zweite (Anzahl Edits in einem Jahr).

Und der Beschluß überläßt das Aktivieren dem betroffenen Editor. Peter Schmitt 09:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(hab Deine Anmerkungen numeriert)

Ad 1: nein - er durchsucht nur Seiten, die aktuell in CZ:Editors gelistet sind.

Ad 2: Guck ich mir an.

Ad 3: verstehe die Frage nicht - zum Testen debug, am besten immer mit -always.

Ad 4: ja, das sollten wir korrigieren. Erster Fall ist schon aufgetreten (mit genau 500 Edits).

--Daniel Mietchen 10:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

ad 1: Das habe ich übersehen.

ad 2: Dann bewirkt meine Modifikation gar nichts, weil die "inaktiven" gar nicht geprüft werden. (Und würde so auch nicht funktionieren.)

ad 3: Ich wollte einfach sagen, daß ich überhaupt nicht weiß, wie man ein Script laufen läßt (falls man dazu überhaupt die Rechte besitzt).

Vielleicht sollte man das Reaktivieren - wie von der Resolution vorgesehen - tatsächlich den Betroffenen selbst überlassen. Wer selbst das nicht macht, ist wohl nicht wirklich aktiv ...

Peter Schmitt 14:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ad 3: Zu bots gibt's keine offizielle Polititk - prinzipiell kann hier jeder welche laufen lassen, auch wenn das sicherlich nicht wünschenswert ist.

Ad 4: Solved.

--Daniel Mietchen 15:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ist Dir aufgefallen: Die vier Editoren, die es jetzt "erwischt" hat, hätten schon beim allerersten Lauf gefunden werden müssen. Peter Schmitt 16:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ist mir aufgefallen, ja. Die waren aber nicht in Category:CZ Editors gelistet. Davon gibt's noch einige. --Daniel Mietchen 16:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite being descended of Schultzes and Maurers, my German isn't too good. Are you updating the active/inactive editor designations? --Joe Quick 16:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, kind of. What we did is update the script that does the active to inactive transition, and think about whether and how it could do the opposite too. We also noticed that some editors were not listed in CZ:Editors but only in workgroup-specific editor categories. --Daniel Mietchen 17:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Natural number/Related Articles

Daniel, you and Howard have edited Natural number/Related Articles. Since our views on what should be included seem to differ I would like to discuss what should and what should not be included to make the list useful. See this section of the talk page. Peter Schmitt 14:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Numbered equations

In regards to numbered equations, see my comments at: Talk:Sturm-Liouville theory. Dan Nessett 19:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Saw them, thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 19:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

1911 Britannica templates

Daniel, are there any plans to use this template? I notice Caesar marked it as un unknown template. Currently only 3 articles use it. There was some discussion back on importing 1911 Britannica articles into the project but that didn't get very far. Wondering if some template can be designed for it? Meg Ireland 03:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea about the current state of {{1911}}, so please try the forum. --Daniel Mietchen 06:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Re Orchid

Daniel, I added another pollination method of orchids, today, probably against the rules. If it goes in, Orchid version number would need changing. Often, when articles come up for approval, they attract my attention for content addition. I guess I should wait for the draft. Anthony.Sebastian 03:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthony. Improvements during the approval phase are certainly within the rules. Can you please also see whether you can help to address some of the concerns Peter raised on the talk page? Thank you. --Daniel Mietchen 07:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Subpages

I like the idea for subpages at the bottom. But perhaps we could remove a few of the links? And maybe invert it, so the tabs are on the bottom? Just a few thoughts, nothing really pressing... Drew R. Smith 11:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have time to work on that, please go ahead and create {{subpage-bottom}} or so. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 11:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh... I just don't know enough about {{subpages}} to make it do what I want. After about an hour of experimenting I only succeeded in putting the disclaimer above the buttons. Even then, it looked more like a formatting error than anything intentional. I could possibly make something from scratch, but I don't think it would look quite as professional as the one we have on top. I'll take another stab at it tomorrow, when I'm not quite so tired... Drew R. Smith 12:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries — I think it took Chris more than just one hour to get the whole thing going. --Daniel Mietchen 13:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a basic layout at my sandbox. The links aren't functional yet, but they will be. Since different backgrounds are used depending on the status, I'm thinking we could actually have {{subpages-bottom A}} and {{subpages-bottom NA}}. Those would then be called by {{subpages-bottom}} using the metadata. Drew R. Smith 00:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot to mention that this includes a demo for opinions, something that has been brought up in the forums on occasion. If we don't want to use it, it can be taken out pretty easily. Drew R. Smith 00:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have a working version being demoed at Test articleA. If you want to see how it handles approved articles simply change the metadata to a status 0. Drew R. Smith 02:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Drew — that's certainly a good demo, though further tweaking will of course be required. I took a screenshot of both variants and uploaded them to the forum thread to stimulate the discussion. --Daniel Mietchen 11:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Subpages for CZ:Wishlist

Daniel, I want to create a page for the "Location & structuring of References/Bibliographies" problem that analyzes the problem in detail. Specifically, I want to summarize the points made on the forum thread, so the information is available in a concise space. However, it doesn't appear I can create subpages of this page. There is no Metadata tab on the talk page. Is there a way to do this? Dan Nessett 15:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Subpages in the subpages sense are disabled except in the main namespace. But you can of course create subpages in the sense of them having a slash in their page name, and link to there from within the table. --Daniel Mietchen 16:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Dan Nessett 17:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

latest delete requests

I've deleted a bunch of them but don't see any justifications or reasons given for deleting what seem to be fairly large articles/lists. Hayford Peirce 21:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the tagged ones is large or even contains anything other than the speedy template. However, the category listing may be confusing because of redirects whose talk pages have been tagged for deletion: Talk:List of rivers by length and Talk:Catalog of magnetic nuclei. --Daniel Mietchen 22:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Watch out for pages listed under T — these will mostly be talk pages that have been tagged. --Daniel Mietchen 11:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Number of definitions

Hi Daniel, just an update on statistics: [1] we currently have 10387 definitions, which means only 2069 article to go. Meg Ireland 13:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Need def gives the same information. Nice to see these numbers go down! --Daniel Mietchen 14:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Orchid version number

Hi Daniel, double check this version number for me. It is no where near the date, so I'm thinking you want the last version. D. Matt Innis 15:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I just updated it again but don't expect it to be the final version for this approval - others may still join in, albeit Supten could approve the piece on his own. --Daniel Mietchen 15:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Wikipedia Journal link

I have created a talk page for the external organization wishlist item and put the link you supplied on it. Dan Nessett 16:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Saw your comment there while trying to get mine through the spam filter. --Daniel Mietchen 19:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Geology and Earth Sciences

Thanks for the link to Earth Science on the Geology RA page. I was not aware that such an article existed. Now I'm wondering just what the relationship is between the articles, their respective areas of coverage, etc. Check the definitions:

• Geology [r]: The scientific study of the structure and composition of the earth's crust and its changes over time. ^[e]
• Earth science [r]: The study of the components and processes of the planet Earth. ^[e]

The two don't seem to be clearly distinguished in the defs.

James F. Perry 20:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hope that 's better now — in any case, Geology is just a subset of the Earth sciences, concerned with the superficial layers and their change over time. My expertise in this field, however, is limited to those areas directly relevant to biological evolution, i.e. palaeontology and palaeoanthropology. --Daniel Mietchen 08:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

An puzzling tag in the text area of a new subgroup main page

Hi Daniel,

I have created a new Internet subgroup, using the procedure described on CZ:Subgroups. Milt pointed me to that page and after following its instructions I noticed that an undefined link shows on both the subgroup template and subgroup main page. This link is named "Internet tag". I asked Milt what it is and he said he didn't know and suggested I contact you. You can see what I mean by going to CZ:Internet Subgroup. Do you have any idea why this is showing up? One possibility is it results from the subgroup having no workgroup associations at the moment. Is that it? Dan Nessett 23:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The answer to the use of tag categories is at Category:Biology tag, but I do not know whether or how {{Workgroup}} works with subgroups. --Daniel Mietchen 23:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Citizendium charter drafting commitee nomination

Hi Daniel, You've been nominated by a fellow Citizendium member to be a candidate for election to the Citizendium charter drafting committee.

If you haven't been following the discussion in the forums, we're getting ready to establish a charter for Citizendium that outlines the project's goals, ideals, and basic structure. To get the process moving, we put together a plan for electing a group of Citizens to compose a draft of the charter, which will then be submitted for community review. You can find more about the plan here.

You've been nominated by another Citizen to be a candidate for election to that committee. The next step is up to you: you may either accept or decline the nomination by going here and following the instructions at the top of the page.

If you have any questions, just let me know. --Joe Quick 15:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Active Editors link on Workgroup banners displays newcomers (with no contributions) as "Active" Editors

Hi, Daniel. The link to Active editors on the banner of the Engineering Workgroup provides a list that includes newcomers Eric Barbour and Donald Paul Martin. Both of them joined CZ in August 2009. The "User Contributions" for both of them is completely empty of any contributions.

Is there any way to prevent the list from including newcomers who have not yet contributed anything? Milton Beychok 00:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically, it would be trivial (the script "knows" them) but this distinction is not covered by CZ:Editorial Council Resolution 0012, and given the current tensions about bots, I would suggest to wait with this one until that is sorted out. In the meantime, you could add your proposal into the preliminary table at CZ Talk:Bot policy (just fill in "purpose" and a name suggestion), which we are going to work on in the following days. --Daniel Mietchen 07:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Fünfte Folge oder Fünfter Folge?

Hi Daniel, I forgot my German. Die Folge? Der Folge? (See Bethe in transition metals) --Paul Wormer 16:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)