User talk:Paul Wormer

From Knowino
Jump to: navigation, search


[edit] Hello!

Welcome, Paul! :-) Thanks for joining and contributing. Please feel free to share any ideas and suggestions you have!—Thomas Larsen (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2010 (CST)

P.S.—We're considering the possibility of changing the name of the project, since "Tendrl" is rather non-descriptive; "Knowino" is a potential name that might be better. What do you think?—Thomas Larsen (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2010 (CST)

[edit] Drive my robot!

Paul, I have a job for you, if you like. You can effectively drive my robot remotely, in the following sense.

Now the robot works rather smoothly, and the only time consuming part of the process is choosing what is worth to import.

Below you'll find a list of articles of CZ, like that:

 Acebutolol/Related Articles
 Acetaldehyde/Related Articles
 Acetaminophen/External Links
 Acetaminophen/Related Articles

You are invited to mark some articles by "+" in the second column, like that:

 Acebutolol/Related Articles
 Acetaldehyde/Related Articles
+Acetaminophen/External Links
 Acetaminophen/Related Articles

These will be imported. The robot renames X/Bibliography into Bibliography:X, and X/External Links into Links:X; also X/Draft into X; other names are intact. I never mark X/Definition or X/Related Articles.

Some articles are already imported as physical; do not mark them again.

I avoid marking stubs. Indeed, I treat the attribution to CZ as a kind of payment. If an article is too small (or too bad in another aspect) it does not cost the payment.

So, here is the list, to be marked.

(Some of these are Chemistry, not Physics, I believe. But this will be your decision.)

--Boris Tsirelson

+X-ray diffraction
 X-ray diffraction/Definition
 X-ray diffraction/Related Articles
 X-ray/Related Articles
 Yaw (dynamics)
 Yaw (dynamics)/Definition
 Yaw (dynamics)/Related Articles
 Yttrium/Related Articles
+Zero-point energy
 Zero-point energy/Definition
 Zero-point energy/Related Articles
 Zinc/Related Articles
 Zirconium/Related Articles

[edit] No credit for Citizendium content

Paul, sometimes you can do similarly to Talk:Entanglement (physics). --Boris Tsirelson 15:40, 7 December 2010 (CST)

And now it is easier than before: instead of typing/copying the long text, just write {{CZauthor|2=~~~~}}. The first parameter, the text, will be taken by default; the second parameter, your signature, is given.
I've made so in the Talk:Entanglement (physics), and shall do in other places.
However, ~~~~ will generate new date/time. If you like to preserve the old date/time (I did so), do like this: {{CZauthor|2=[[User:Boris Tsirelson|Boris Tsirelson]] 11:25, 2 December 2010 (CST)}}; that is, put the already existing data as the second parameter.
--Boris Tsirelson 10:22, 13 December 2010 (CST)

[edit] Administrator

Hello Paul! I've given you the "administrator" bit here. I'm sure you'll use it wisely. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me! :-) —Thomas Larsen (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2010 (CST)

[edit] Question

"Magnetic induction" exists already (made by you!); do you really want it to be overwritten? --Boris Tsirelson 04:00, 15 December 2010 (CST)

No.--Paul Wormer 04:10, 15 December 2010 (CST)

[edit] Reply

I replied to your comment on my talk page.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2010 (CST)

Looks like your zoom settings have changed. Try Ctrl-<-> (Ctrl-Minus), or select View->Zoom->Zoom Out. Let me know if that fixes the problem.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2010 (CST)
In fact, better still, just try Ctrl-<0> (Ctrl-Zero).—Thomas Larsen (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2010 (CST)
OK that was it, must have accidentally hit some key. I didn't think of it because the other tab pages were OK.--Paul Wormer 05:30, 15 December 2010 (CST)
Haha! Well, I'm glad that was the only cause. You did have me wondering for a second or two how I could possibly have changed the font-size settings. :-) —Thomas Larsen (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2010 (CST)

[edit] E-mail

Paul, I've just sent you an e-mail.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2010 (EST)

[edit] Articles

What sorts of articles need to be written now? I see most of the ones here are either mathematics or science related. I was actually going to write an article from scratch (as most articles, including the ones I entered) are from CZ.--Robert Smith 13:13, 20 December 2010 (EST)

[edit] monobook.js

I guess this is going to sound rather stupid, but you are using the Monobook skin, right? ;-) (If you're not, monobook.js won't have any affect. The default skin is Vector, not Monobook.)—Thomas Larsen (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2010 (EST)

Yes I'm using monobook. --Paul Wormer 07:53, 25 December 2010 (EST)
Ah, excellent. I thought it was best to check (some users will spend hours trying to fix a file that's not even used)... Good night!—Thomas Larsen (talk) 07:57, 25 December 2010 (EST)

[edit] Plane again

Paul, would you please look at this text? Comments/improvements/objections are welcome... --Boris Tsirelson 12:28, 28 December 2010 (EST)

Nice. Replaced. Now please look at this text. (No generalizations this time, almost copyedit.) --Boris Tsirelson 16:56, 29 December 2010 (EST)

The next section replaced, too. Now "Accurate". --Boris Tsirelson 05:00, 31 December 2010 (EST)

[edit] Image upload wizard

Hello Paul! I still haven't forgotten your request for a more fluid and intuitive way to upload images (including things like license metadata, attribution, and so on). I'm sorry that it's taking so long to sort out the image upload wizard. As things stand, I need to configure Extension:UploadWizard and import a few templates for Special:UploadWizard to work properly, but progress is being made. Just thought I'd let you know.

Thanks for all your work so far! :-) —Thomas Larsen (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2011 (EST)

[edit] Suggestions?

Paul, if I understand correctly, you were rather critical of Citizendium's coverage of various topics that are generally held to be pseudoscience. How do you think Knowino could avoid the problems with objectivity and neutrality that Citizendium experienced (and continues to experience)?—Tom Larsen (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2011 (EST)

That is an extremely tough question, because "pseudoscientists" are like religious fundamentalists; a large part of their opinions is based on faith, not on well-documented observations. Discussions between non-believers and believers (in such "facts") are almost by definition impossible. Already the validity of the documentation of perceived facts can lead to endless, time-consuming, useless discussions. Persuading an author that his/hers views are pseudoscientific is a tedious process that will most likely fail in the end.
A rigorous line of defense would be a scientific council consisting of hard-core skeptics, chosen by co-option. This council would have the power to decide what articles are pseudoscience and to delete them. (Basically this is the way most scientific journals operate; they choose the editorial board by co-option and in case of conflict the editorial board decides what is published). Such a meritocratic approach would raise a storm of protest against Knowino on the internet.
A pragmatic and cowardly solution is: completely ignore the pseudoscientific article. Chances are that nobody will notice it when there is complete silence about it. My example here is Ormus. An article about it had been sitting silently on CZ for almost three years. Even the guys over at RW had not noticed it. The Ormus article became only a problem after it was discovered. (CZ chased me off because I wanted it deleted. After I had left, it appeared that CZ did not want an article about Ormus after all; there is no article about it on CZ.)
In short: I don't have a good, definite, answer to your question. --Paul Wormer 04:14, 10 January 2011 (EST)
May I join? The "pragmatic solution" looks to me MUCH better. The "scientific council consisting of hard-core skeptics" is a suicide, I'm afraid. Not only because of "a storm of protest against Knowino on the internet". Rather, we have to restrict ourselves to feasible projects. It is infeasible (I think so) to turn Knowino into a prestigious academy. We are not, and never will be The Ultimate Truth Committee. But this is OK. What we really can is, to attach to (some) articles expert assessments. Not necessarily positive. (See also User talk:Thomas Larsen/sandbox-2.) Do not wish too much, and you will not be frustrated. --Boris Tsirelson 11:19, 10 January 2011 (EST)
CZ produces much less (in quality and quantity) than possible exactly because it wants to produce much more than possible. If Knowino will be considerably more reliable than WP, I'll be satisfied. Denoting "the ideal compendium" by 1: WP=0.001 (achieved); Knowino=0.01 (desirable). If in a future some pretentious project, using Knowino's spectacular succcess of 0.01, will attack 0.1 and succeed, we'll be proud; but I do not expect that much. --Boris Tsirelson 11:44, 10 January 2011 (EST)
I agree that an Ultimate Truth Committee is undesirable. A panel of sceptics would also imply support for a purely scientific point of view (c.f. parts of RationalWiki). I think objectivity is desirable in an encyclopedia/compendium; readers are intelligent enough to make up their own minds. But I really would like to keep Knowino from becoming a warm haven for the promotion of pseudoscientific ideas.
Personally, I think the key is ensuring that we establish a strong community of people who support the concept of objectivity. I don't mean people who are hardcore sceptics, who will argue that an article on pseudoscientific idea A should say, "A is not accepted by true scientists and therefore is nonsense." But I think we need a community of individuals who will not stand for undue weight or opinionated claims in articles. So I suppose I think the solution is to do with culture more than anything else. I don't really know how we can achieve such a culture, though; upholding it ourselves is a good start. Hopefully it'll just happen. You know... Itdidit! :-) —Tom Larsen (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2011 (EST)
Different people will join inevitably (unless the project will just die). I am mostly bothered with minimization of internal conflicts. This is why I'd prefer a collection of experts' opinions to a monolithic opinion of Knowino; the latter is infeasible and even dangerous, since the power can some day be taken by people that we do not like much. I want them also to only attach their assessments rather than making binding decisions. I personally do not know whether homeopathy helps or not, and anyway, it does not prevent me from writing math. Moreover I doubt that dozens of mathematicians leave CZ (yes, I see some of them on WP again) because of homeopathy. --Boris Tsirelson 01:08, 11 January 2011 (EST)


To come back to Ormus: In first instance I did exactly what Boris suggests. I left the article intact but added a small preface undersigned by me as chemistry editor. In it I pointed out that the article contained pseudoscience of the kind found frequently on the internet. A CZ constable did not find this an acceptable solution, removed my signed preface, and entered some of my words into the introduction. He left unchanged the pseudoscientific bullshit further down in the article. When I saw this I deemed it better not waste any time on Ormus and to request deletion.

So, yes, it seems to me a worthwhile experiment to have signed comments attached to controversial articles.

--Paul Wormer 05:01, 11 January 2011 (EST)

In theory that could be done with Flagged Revisions, if necessary, although it would be a bit of a hack.—Tom Larsen (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2011 (EST)
In some sense I am doing so already (see Countable set or any other article approved by me as "accurate"). However, for now (1) I can attach a note only to a positive assessment, and (2) two experts cannot attach two notes. Thomas, what about a hack? --Boris Tsirelson 07:19, 11 January 2011 (EST)
Well, by "hack" I mean changing the Flagged Revisions extension to allow notes on "Unapproved" revisions. I'm sure it's possible, but it might be a bit messy.
Alternatively, we could let reviewers insert notes into articles using a special template. That might be the most practical solution in the short term.—Tom Larsen (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2011 (EST)


For example:

Information.svg An expert reviewer has expressed concerns over the content of this article:
Concerns...—Tom Larsen (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2011 (EST)

(Something about proceeding at your own risk, etc., etc.)

Tom Larsen (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2011 (EST)

Yes; but I bother that everyone can remove the template. Here is another possibility. Each article consists of the protected main page containing assessments, and a non-protected subpage containing the content and transcluded into the protected page. --Boris Tsirelson 08:04, 11 January 2011 (EST)
Using such a system on all articles would be a bit complicated and inelegant for my liking. I suppose we could use it on individual articles if there was a problem with reviewer templates being removed.—Tom Larsen (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2011 (EST)

[edit] "Unfinished stub"?

Isn't a stub, almost by definition, unfinished? It might be a good idea to clarify the description somewhat.—Tom Larsen (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2011 (EST)

How about: "stub with loose ends"? (Betty Crocker needed a drawing not available at WCom, carried a template "inuse", was very short, and had the wrong category).--Paul Wormer 05:42, 14 January 2011 (EST)
That's still a bit vague, although it's better. A good stub can have (and perhaps should have) loose ends, content-wise. I suggest something along the lines of, "Stub needs improvement (and no changes in past week)."
Also, perhaps we should adopt the principle of moving stubs that are relevant, but not yet ready for "mainspace", to user subpages. For example, Foo could be moved to User:Thomas Larsen/Foo. That's a bit less "aggressive" than deleting a page outright. What do you think?—Tom Larsen (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2011 (EST)
Not deleting but moving is good when you know that some Knowino-ist is working on it. This article was "borrowed" from CZ; in a sec we have it back, why move it somewhere?--Paul Wormer 06:07, 14 January 2011 (EST)
Good point. I was thinking more of applying the principle to original articles (or articles which have been changed significantly).—Tom Larsen (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2011 (EST)
Or maybe, "Stub does not meet basic quality guidelines (and no improvements in past week)."—Tom Larsen (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2011 (EST)
Yes, "Betty Crocker" is available on CZ; but "Bioethics" is not. --Boris Tsirelson 06:25, 14 January 2011 (EST)
I'm sorry, I saw one brief sentence that I thought came from CZ. It did not occur to me that a Kowino-ist could have written it, can we recover it?--Paul Wormer 06:31, 14 January 2011 (EST) PS. I see that Boris restored and moved it. (Lots of work for one sentence).
"Lots of work for one sentence" – yes; but not quite for the sentence, rather for the ethic principle (if in doubt, be more polite) :-) --Boris Tsirelson 06:39, 14 January 2011 (EST)
The problem is that stub making is to some extent welcome on WP. We may proclaim it unwelcome here, but then we must inform users accordingly. --Boris Tsirelson 07:03, 14 January 2011 (EST)


You convinced me, I will not continue checking articles, the chance that I make a mistake is too large. --Paul Wormer 07:20, 14 January 2011 (EST)

--?? You do a nice job. As you surely understand, only delete can be irreversible (and even it is often reversible). "The only way to never err is, to do nothing." (Should be a quotation, in my bad back translation from Russian.) --Boris Tsirelson 07:50, 14 January 2011 (EST)
Don't worry too much about making mistakes—as seen in this case, the wiki makes it trivial to undo them.—Tom Larsen (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2011 (EST)

[edit] "CZauthor"

Paul, did you look at your Talk:Gauss type orbitals? Maybe you mean "{{CZauthor|2=~~~~}}" rather than "{{CZauthor|~~~~}}" ? See above. --Boris Tsirelson 15:25, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

And the same for Talk:Chemical bonding, please. --Boris Tsirelson 14:53, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

[edit] sine images

Paul, your pictures to "Sine" at CZ are not licensed explicitly. You can put them here with a good license; I cannot. --Boris Tsirelson 04:42, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

I drew all of them myself and I release always all my drawings as Public Domain. Why can't you copy them and give them PD license? You have my permission. --Paul Wormer 05:59, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
I do not find the words "public domain" on cz:File:Def sine cosine.png. (See also here.) Maybe I could quote this your message in our description of the picture. But it would be much more natural, uncontroversial and useful, to have a "CC-BY-SA" (rather than "PD") license from the author himself. Why not? --Boris Tsirelson 06:22, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
Because I don't know anything about licenses and I thought that PD was more liberal than CC-BY-SA (whatever that means).--Paul Wormer 06:29, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
When you upload an image to Knowino, you are asked for a license, and you see that CC-BY-SA is recommended. --Boris Tsirelson 06:46, 9 June 2011 (EDT)
Yes I saw that now, but not before. The "recommended" was somewhat hidden; Wikimedia Commons has a clearer layout. There I usually choose CC-by-SA, because there the recommendation jumps out. --Paul Wormer 08:05, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

[edit] Please close my account and remove my name from this wiki

Hi! In November I requested my account be closed. I see I am still listed as a member. Could you please close my account as I am cutting back on my wiki participation. Thanks! Mary Ash 23:10, 28 January 2013 (EST)

Personal tools