User talk:Raymond Arritt: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Raymond Arritt (boundary conditions) |
imported>Hayford Peirce (→Glad to see you back: maybe we need Bill Clinton to parse "substantive" for us) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:::To avoid the potential for misunderstandings I don't think anyone should make substantive changes to the draft without first receiving guidance from the EIC. [[User:Raymond Arritt|Raymond Arritt]] 16:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC) | :::To avoid the potential for misunderstandings I don't think anyone should make substantive changes to the draft without first receiving guidance from the EIC. [[User:Raymond Arritt|Raymond Arritt]] 16:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
::::Larry seems to be MIA these days but is probably lurking around in the neighborhood. In any case, "substantive" changes should never be made to *any* article without at least some discussion ahead of time. The problem is defining "substantive" to everyone's satisfaction. But if we can't make *some* changes to the draft version of Homeopathy, then that means it's just as locked in stone as the Approved article, which is NOT meant to be the case. People are free to work on it at any time.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:16, 2 May 2009
Glad to see you back
Hi Raymond, this is just to say that I am glad to see you contribute again. With a smile, --Daniel Mietchen 22:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Daniel. I'm mostly here to look at Homeopathy as a sort of test case on how Citizendium handles controversial articles. If it gets fixed then I may work on the project more regularly. While I'm here, I thought I'd clean up some of the most egregiously awful stuff in Global warming. Raymond Arritt 00:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, don't forget that all we can do at the moment is to "fix" the *draft* version of Homeopathy. Once that's fixed, then we can see about getting it to replace the Approved article. So first things first.... Hayford Peirce 01:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- To avoid the potential for misunderstandings I don't think anyone should make substantive changes to the draft without first receiving guidance from the EIC. Raymond Arritt 16:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- Larry seems to be MIA these days but is probably lurking around in the neighborhood. In any case, "substantive" changes should never be made to *any* article without at least some discussion ahead of time. The problem is defining "substantive" to everyone's satisfaction. But if we can't make *some* changes to the draft version of Homeopathy, then that means it's just as locked in stone as the Approved article, which is NOT meant to be the case. People are free to work on it at any time.... Hayford Peirce 17:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)