User talk:Robert Tito/Archive 2

From Citizendium
< User talk:Robert Tito
Revision as of 05:25, 24 April 2007 by imported>David Tribe (→‎Apple)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


workgroups

Workgroups are no longer used for group communications, but they still are used to group articles into fields of interest. Each article is assigned to 1-3 Workgroups via the article's Metadata.

Chemistry Workgroup
Chemistry article All articles (945) To Approve (0) Editors: active (0) / inactive (23)
and
Authors: active (157) / inactive (0) 		Workgroup Discussion
Recent changes Citable Articles (34)
Subgroups (5.5)
Checklist-generated categories:

Subpage categories:

Missing subpage categories:

Article statuses:

Workgroups are no longer used for group communications, but they still are used to group articles into fields of interest. Each article is assigned to 1-3 Workgroups via the article's Metadata.

Computers Workgroup
Computers article All articles (1,099) To Approve (0) Editors: active (3) / inactive (77)
and
Authors: active (815) / inactive (0) 		Workgroup Discussion
Recent changes Citable Articles (12)
Subgroups (11)
Checklist-generated categories:

Subpage categories:

Missing subpage categories:

Article statuses:

Workgroups are no longer used for group communications, but they still are used to group articles into fields of interest. Each article is assigned to 1-3 Workgroups via the article's Metadata.

Physics Workgroup
Physics article All articles (884) To Approve (0) Editors: active (1) / inactive (24)
and
Authors: active (241) / inactive (0) 		Workgroup Discussion
Recent changes Citable Articles (16)
Subgroups (2.5)
Checklist-generated categories:

Subpage categories:

Missing subpage categories:

Article statuses:

Editor status confusion

Tito,

On my user welcome page, http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Michael_Mills, you indicated that I was accepted as an editor:

"Welcome to the Citizendium! We're very glad you've joined us as an editor. Most of your functions you share with authors, so you'll probably want to read how to get started as an author." Hey Matt, as we have been through 2 approvals of Chiropractic, could you find it in your heart to finish approval for critical views of chiropractic? Look it over again please. I've been waiting on you to get the full text of those chiropractic articles. Nancy Sculerati 17:09, 6 April 2007 (CDT) darn no clashes of swords, no musketeer in action :)yessir;) :( no more humor :)Iwasserious:(:)Iwasnot:)>:uscaredme:< noneedtohideshyone :)butiseedeadpeople! goodfridayisoverthereareeggstobefound:) isaidfindnotHIDE:):)))findwhat?:))[[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:black"> <font color="red"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font> </span>, which ۝ should look like the following: Robert Tito |  Talk 


However, another user, Matt Innis" removed my editor status. See: 

  http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Michael_Mills

At this point, I'm pretty confused. Thanks for helping to clarify this. 

-- Mike Mills

Signature

Try pasting this into your signature preferences. Chris Day (Talk) 01:44, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

[[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:black"> <font color="red"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font> </span>, which ۝ should look like the following: Robert Tito |  Talk 

LOL Chris, I talked about the archive box. The link to my name is not correct it seems. Robert Tito (Talk)
I know the problem with the archive box. i designed it for the article space and forgot it might be used on user talk pages. Consequently, it links to the CZ article about you rather than your user page. Apparently you, and Larry, are not notable enough for your own articles ;) I can fix it though and then it will point to your user page. Chris Day (Talk) 10:56, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
OK, archive box is fixed, I think that is how you wanted it. You signature still needs to be tweeked too. At present the red talk link does not link to anywhere. The bolded code above will fix the problem. Chris Day (Talk) 13:11, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
Forget that last comment, i just noticed your lastest signature does not have the bold red talk link and has reverted back to a functioning minimalist look. Chris Day (Talk) 13:14, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Question

Hello. You welcomed me to citizendium earlier [1] and I would like to thank you. Also, I have a question regarding society and religion. I was wondering if citizendium has any experts on hand who specialize in society, history and religion in South Asia.If not, then I can utilize my contacts to solicit help from peer-reviewed scholars in US universities who specialize in such topics to build good articles here.Analabha Roy 01:34, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

Big O

Robert will you join us here as a computer science editor. I will handle the constable issues on whatever you guys decide. --Matt Innis (Talk) 08:15, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

Hi, thanks for your input. Responded on Matt's page -- as the discussion there is the most complete and there is another math editor invited to put comments there (so let's centralize the discussion). --AlekStos 12:30, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

Well the only thing I wonder about is the following, but it is minor: We use O(something) and call O order of , usually trailing fast to 0. In general it can be called trailing part fastly approaching 0) hence O can also be interpreted as order of nearly zero. Anything to make it more transparant is welcome. Robert Tito |  Talk  12:34, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

hey

did this slow you down;) --Matt Innis (Talk) 15:39, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for fixing up my late-night errors. Off to bed with me  :-) -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 23:30, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

Great infinity cartoon. Reminds me of my own days in math, when my instructor who had an accent such that he pronounced "naught" as "not", would ask repeatedly: when Y approaches Yo, then - what is the limit? Nancy Sculerati 20:15, 28 March 2007 (CDT) Try explaining Fourier transforms when infinity isn't clear. let alone changing coordinate-system :) Robert Tito |  Talk 

Question

Robert: Yesterday, I got started. I moved over my Wikipedia article on Combustion Analysis. I made a link to the Engineering Drafts and Engineering Articles to be Approved. Do I have do something else? Thanks, Gordan -- Gordan Feric Robert: Yesterday, I got started. I moved over my Wikipedia article on Combustion Analysis. I made a link to the Engineering Drafts and Engineering Articles to be Approved. Do I have do something else? Thanks, Gordan -- Gordan Feric

Gordan, you cannot tag the article as to approve, that has to be done by 1 editor, not affiliated/contributing to the article. I will remove the ToApprove template, and advice you to check out the approval process, see the help pages. Robert Tito |  Talk  11:06, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

purple egg ۝

Robert: Thanks for the answer and corresponding feedback. As you can see, I am new with Wikipedia and Citizendium and their way of getting things accomplished. I am learning, but I still need some help while learing the basic principles of how the Citizendium article approval process works. Hopefully, my first article on Combustion Analysis will help me find out for the new and future articles. Basically, once I am done with an article, I just add a Category Tag at the bottom of the article page -- Engineering Workgroup -- and the rest is up to the Editors and I just need to follow the discussion page on what my responsibilities are. Thanks, Gordan Gordan Feric
Robert: I have another question. Now, I do know how to create new pages. How about deleting the pages that I do not need any more? Can I delete such pages or who does that part? Thanks, Gordan Gordan Feric To delete a page you submit a request at constables(@citizendium.org requesting the deletion, OR you can add the {{speedydelete}} template. The latter makes it simple: add that tag and it will be taken care of by one of the constables. cheers, Robert Tito |  Talk  13:28, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

test Robert Tito |  Talk  13:41, 29 March 2007 (CDT)

۝

Wikimedia Commons

Dear Mr. Tito, Thanks for the confirmation. I would like to ask you if you think it is possible to use Wikimedia Commons pictures on Citzendium, or do we have to reupload them here as well?Soso Mamukelashvili 10:23, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

test

  • TIME
  • TIME

Divisor article

Is this article "in the pipeline" yet? I don't see it yet in any list, including list of unapproved articles. Thanks,Rich 23:45, 30 March 2007 (CDT) Rich, I added the labels Live and the Mathematics workgroup. You should ask one of the editors in Math to back you up and put the article up for approval. See our approval process for the details. Robert Tito |  Talk  01:45, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

Image

Hello Robert, how are you? I've been trying since this morning to upload a picture of Noam Chomsky (with a Creative Commons licence), however the system kept giving me some strange messages. Finally some minutes ago I was able to upload the picture, but when I look at the page it´s seems all my attempts got recorded. Would it be possible for you to delete the image (here [2]), so that I could upload again and all those attempts wouldn't be recorded? Thanks --José Leonardo Andrade 13:01, 31 March 2007 (CDT) Executed Robert Tito |  Talk  13:20, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

template for workgroup education

Do you think it will be useful for people who are actively writing but have not joined a workgroup or are not adding workgroup categories to articles? We could place this on certain people's usert talk pages. Feel free to edit it and please make a comment on the talk page if you are able. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Template:Workgroup_introduction -Tom Kelly (Talk) 21:56, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

Macromolecular Chemistry

Hi there. I am a newly minted chemistry editor and recently added some comments to the Macromolecular chemistry talk page. Nancy suggested that I discuss with you suggested changes to improve this page.

My most grievous concern is that the opening paragraph incorrectly defines "macromolecule". My biology textbook (Purves) and Physical Biochemistry (van Holden) textbook state that "proteins are polymers of amino acids", a definition which contradicts the introductory definition. The introduction also incorrectly implies that "polymer" and "plastic" are synonymous. Unfortunately, this incorrect definition is proliferated throughout the article.

In my books, Tanford the physical chemistry of macromolecules it mentions proteins are examples of macromolecules, as does Lehninger in his book Biochemistry. The point I tried to make here was to make it clear to readers polymers are macromolecules and vv. But ask a general reader what is a polymer and they invariantly say: plastic, nylon. Not once it comes to thought biological molecules (many of which are macromolecular in nature) are polymers as well. Or using its synonym macromolecule.

Second, I'm not sure that this article presents the reader with "lucid, highly readable introductions written in compelling, narrative prose that really does the job of introducing a topic to people who need one" as per CZ article helpful hints There is a lot of information in this article but there is not much to inform the reader what the field of macromolecular chemistry is all about.

As it is not intended to do. It only tries to interest the reader to delve into follow-up chapters, each already mentioned by the suvdivisions later in the article. The world of polymers and (biological) macromolecules is far too complext to treat in one place and still be readable to and for general public. The deeper the reader delves the more a specialist one needs to be to understand. In my idea nobody needs to know any details of chemistry of physics to understand the top layer. The details as usual are far more complex - but acant and must not be touched in a top layer article, IMHO.

Third, the overemphasis on biological macromolecules seems inconsistent with common usage. The journal Macromolecules, for example, primarily emphasizes synthetic polymers and macromolecules. Discussions of proteins and nucleic acids typically find their ways into biology and biochemistry journals and come with their own set of terminology.

In the labs I worked Gorleaus Laboratory, University of Leiden as well as the free university and the university of amsterdam that distinction never was put in that way and it didnt matter be it biochemistry biophysics, physical chemistry or macromolecular chemistry.

My general suggestion is that we take this article and start to part it out into smaller articles. For example, the Macromolecules and Functions of macromolecules and Biomacromolecules sections could form the basis for a pretty hefty article on macromolecules. The Economics and Environment section could be expanded into an article on plastics. And the section entitled Introduction to Physical Polymer Chemistry seems to describe the discipline of polymer physics. Once this material has been seeded to additional articles, we can either redirect this page to the polymer chemistry page (which needs some work) or build a page from the ground up which describes the field of macromolecular chemistry, including history, professional organizations, and basic concepts along the lines of the flagship chemistry page.

Your thoughts? Jacob Jensen 03:16, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

My thoughts: macromolecular for the more polymeric solutions/fluid materials (as I intended to do) and polymer chemistry for the more (commonly) seen polymers (the hard plastic substances everybody associated with polymers..

The different subchapters were meant to be indicative of deepening articles all with their deepening and more precise and more scientific treatment of the matter. In my opinion - but then who am I, a person of 14 should be able to read it. But someone with knowledge should find a quick roadmap to more detailed info to look up. my 0.02€ on it. Robert Tito |  Talk  18:13, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

I don't think that I'm making myself clear. Here are the points that I'm trying to make.
  1. The fields of macromolecular chemistry and polymer chemistry are the same thing. No external, reputable source makes a clear distinction between the two.

I have presented some evidence above, namely the charter of the prominent (highest impact factor journal Macromolecules. There is also the Wiley-published Journal of Macromolecular Chemistry whose stated aim is to publish "...original research papers in all topical areas of polymer chemistry and physics." [3]

Consider also the IUPAC division IV, referred to as both the MACROMOLECULAR DIVISION[4] and POLYMER DIVISION[5] and responsible for the IUPAC goldbook which recommends treating "macromolecule" and "polymer molecule" as synonyms.

  1. The field of macromolecular chemistry is largely, but not exclusively, concerned with artificial synthetic polymers and their characterization.

Consider for example the contents of the 3-volume work "Macromolecular chemistry" published by the Royal Society, which devotes nearly three quarters of its 400 pages to synthetic organic chemistry and the characterization of synthetic organic polymers [6].

  1. The current article emphasizes biological macromolecules, especially proteins, which represent only a small fraction of active research in macromolecular chemistry.

The work cited above devotes less than 20 pages to proteins and fewer than 50 to naturally occurring polymers. I would also suggest perusing recent copies of prominent journals such as Macromolecules and Journal of Macromolecular Chemistry. In recent issues, the only mention of polypeptides or proteins is a single article on laboratory-synthesized polypeptides. The rest is all synthetic polymers.


Put simply, I think that there is no precedent for separating "macromolecular chemistry" and "polymer chemistry" into two separate articles because the prominent organizations in chemistry (IUPAC, RSC, ACS) agree that they are one and the same. If you can provide sources to the contrary I am happy to be wrong but I think that you are drawing an artificial distinction between the two. Jacob Jensen 22:27, 4 April 2007 (CDT) I try to make science accessible also for pre-graduates. I suggest the same solution as for the other. Robert Tito |  Talk  22:59, 4 April 2007 (CDT) by the way: I did say they are tautologies. Only people do not realize.

I'm still not sure what you are saying. If we are writing to a non-technical audience at any level, our first approach should be to disabuse them of any incorrect notions (such as the synonymity of "plastic" and "polymer") and introduce them to the language that scientists speak. Since no professional chemistry organization sees any difference between "polymer chemistry" and "macromolecular chemistry", it seems counterproductive to generate multiple articles suggesting that there is a difference.
In either event, please have a look at the polymer chemistry page that I have created. Again, my proposal is that the macromolecular chemistry page be redirected to this page and this represents, in my view, a lucid overview of the discipline of polymer chemistry intended for a technical or non-technical audience. Your comments are appreciated. Jacob Jensen 00:01, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

{{civil}}

(I'm flattered by the fact that you seem to have liked my signature, by the way.)

I don't want to discuss the ins and outs of the comment to which you took exception earlier; I was a little heated, but... well, anyway, as I say, let's leave that. I'm a bit surprised, though, that you simply deleted the whole thing, and without letting me know. In so far as you felt that part of my message wasn't civil enough, wouldn't it have better (more civil?) to delete just the offending words, and to let me know that you'd done so? Or even to have asked me to modify the comment myself? Obviously it's done and in the past now, but I'm thinking about other people who might have the same thing happen to them in the future. Is there a constabulary manual of some kind, and might that be added to it? --Peter J. King  Talk  17:02, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

New authors

Hi Rob, have yopu seen this thread in the forum? http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,752.msg5936/topicseen.html#msg5936

This guy seems pretty keen to get going. Is the backlog pretty big or was he missed for some reason? Sorry if this isn't your area. Chris Day (Talk) 19:29, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

Disappearing Life

Rob, the Life article disappeared after your 'molecules of life' edits. I restored and added in your edits. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 20:54, 7 April 2007 (CDT) Thanks Anthony, I thought I restored it, but was mistaken. Hope you can find yourself in the restatement of words. Robert Tito |  Talk  22:26, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

Computer/Draft

Hey I commented on your creation of Computer/Draft over at Talk:Computer/Draft. Please take a look --Eric M Gearhart 12:12, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Tux

I believe the Tux article is ready to be placed under the #1 status. Could you please review this for approval? Thanks! --Joshua David Williams 12:22, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

read and approved

I put in the Toapprove template Robert Tito |  Talk  12:42, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Thanks! It's quite exciting to have written the first approved computer article (or soon will be) :) --Joshua David Williams 12:43, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Tux needs re-approved

See this message I wrote. Tux needs re-approved, I'm afraid. Also, are you sure the toapprove tag is supposed to go on the talk page? It appears to have added the talk page for approval instead. --Joshua David Williams 13:24, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Tux

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying :) --Joshua David Williams 13:45, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

See this[7]

Yet another message about the controversial Tux article

For the sake of clarification, while I'm aware that there will always be objections, you needn't push too hard for the article to be approved because I'm eager for it to happen. I want it to be an excellent article more than I want it approved. Approval means absolutely nothing if it's done for the wrong reason. Cheers! --Joshua David Williams 23:03, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Yes, this article has indeed been terribly controversial. However, from the fray has emerged, as David Tribe described, "a great little story". Stephen Ewen 13:17, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

Well, during its nomination period, a long and hard debate ensued on this intensely controversial article. However, from the fray has emerged a version everyone seems happy with. Rob, could you please update the nomination template to reflect this? Stephen Ewen 18:55, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

DONE Robert Tito |  Talk 
Rob, you can approve this article all by yourself. See Tux talk page. Stephen Ewen 21:07, 20 April 2007 (CDT)
I know I can, I know you cannot :) you contributed way too much to do that :D Editors who do agree with the approval proposal should however put their names in the approval-tag. Suppose I asked the coppers to do it, they now will have to read ALL of the talk pages to see if it is according to the rules - hey they can use their time better. Two editors allows the third to initiate the approval process - executed by a copper. It would be far easier if two or three editor names appear in the approval tag in stead of being mentioned as a 'side remark'. I will approve the article later today and execute the corresponding hussle of files. cheers. Robert Tito |  Talk  21:16, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

Byte

Just thought I'd let you know about this message I posted since you brought up the subject. :) --Joshua David Williams 19:13, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

hey Rob!

Nice to see your name on the wiki- even with a minor edit. Of course, you know how I feel about macs...Nancy Sculerati 18:46, 19 April 2007 (CDT) I got what I asked for Fair Lady :)

Apple

I can't honestly say I've ever heard of those models with the brackets in the name. It doesn't look like your nowiki tag is working out for it, though. Perhaps you could put the ASCII code between a & and a ;. --Joshua David Williams 18:48, 19 April 2007 (CDT) I did my research leading to my doctorate using a ][e so I think I am well aware of the brackets contrary to the II, where as the // came out later and were really graophical marvels at heir time. Robert Tito |  Talk 


Models that look beautiful

My students are using this http://hugin.ethz.ch/wuthrich/software/molmol/

It makes great protein diagrams. David Tribe 06:25, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

Yes also, I had a apple II plus.

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_Tito/Archive_2&oldid=96672"