User talk:Joe Quick

Joe Quick

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5

Thanks!

Thanks so much for fixing my major boo-boos. Perhaps some day someone could show me how to do this rather than depending on the kindness of others.Mary Ash 20:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem. What you did was almost right, but then it looks like you tried to fix a mistake and wound up with a whole string of redirects. To make an archive, first move your talk page to the archive at Talk:Your_Name/Archive_X where X is the number of the archive. Then go back to your talk page (make sure it is actually the talk page, since it will be set to redirect to the new archive) and replace the redirect with {{archive box|auto=long}}. Does that make sense? -Joe Quick 21:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It sort of makes sense. I'll have my kids take a look at what you wrote. I'm sure they can help me, if not I'll ask for once again. Many thanks. BTW just made some yummy red pepper jelly that I plan to freeze in my new freezer. Life is yummy!!Mary Ash 23:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Scary synchronicity

About an hour ago, I finished indexing a book that contained a reference to Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities, the same book you cited in a footnote to your Vernacular article. Cue the Twilight Zone music! Bruce M. Tindall 21:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually reading Anderson right now. Or I should be. I think this is now the third time I've read it for one course or another, so it's hard to stay focused... -Joe Quick 15:29, 24 January 2011 (CST)

Suppose that *I* were reading The Roots of Coincidence by Arthur Koestler right now -- what would *that* signify? Hayford Peirce 21:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Just another branch of coincidence, I suppose. ;) --Joe Quick 21:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Approval Manager

Hi, Joe. I have asked Matt to rename the account (no "s"). As for the approval process: I have not yet installed the templates for advertising and managing the process, but should have them ready soon. --Peter Schmitt 01:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The account is renamed. You'll need to sign in through the new account name from now on. If you need me to do something with the old account page, let me know. D. Matt Innis 01:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. I'm studying the new approval procedures so I can get things rolling soon. -Joe Quick 15:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And, may I say - Welcome back. There is hope after all. Let me know if there is anything I can do to make your job easier. D. Matt Innis 22:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess the best thing you could do is to call for review whenever you come across an article that ought to be approved. I think I'm going to archive the "Ready for Approval" page and start fresh with a subpage of the Approval Manager account but I'm not sure just yet. I'll make sure you all know how to get my attention once I've studied the new approval mechanisms and the templates are ready to go.

What do you think about a push to reapprove currently approved articles under the new procedure? I think it might be good in order to try to get a standard across all approved articles. It might also be an easier way to build momentum... -Joe Quick 00:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Since we cannot un-approve articles and considering how few Editors are active I do not think that we should work on Approved articles.

Nominating an article should be done by putting a template on the corresponding talk page. All stages of the approval process should be announced by the green banner on recent pages. I am working on this on the EC wiki. --Peter Schmitt 09:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What's to stop the EC un-approving an article? Peter Jackson 10:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. I'll wait until the templates are ready before I go around establishing new procedures or anything. With all the work that has clearly gone into the new approvals mechanisms, I want to be sure to follow the intent of the EC as closely as possible.

I didn't have un-approval in mind at all. I'm just thinking about how to build momentum. Other approvals have always been the best way to get people to think about approval for their own articles: approvals has always proceeded in bursts. So I was thinking about the easiest way to get some visible action.

The EC has graciously provided me with the tools I think I need to start to draw in outside reviewers for articles. These people will hopefully become (at least occasional) contributors and Editors for the wiki. I'll need to rely on suggestions from other Citizens for who to contact about a lot of articles, but then I can reach out to the people who are both familiar and enthusiastic about the topics of the articles we are most proud of. That's the plan, anyway. ;) -Joe Quick 13:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Approval templates

Joe, I have created the first versions of the approval templates (and have announced in the forum). Sorry that it took me longer than expected. I have not yet a documentation for usage, and some work remains to be done, so I will have to help when a process should be started. --Peter Schmitt 00:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Peter and Joe, I replaced the approval nomination template as Peter asked on my talk page. I assume the single green line is because there are no announcements to make yet. Let me know if something else needs to happen. D. Matt Innis 00:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Matt. The new template has not yet been used. I have (re)nominated the previously nominated Randomized controlled trial/Draft. It will be the first test case. --Peter Schmitt 01:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter. I'll look into what other articles we can get started with the new process. -Joe Quick 02:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Editor request

Joe, Richard applied as for author and editor priviledges several weeks ago and I explained to him that the editor request would be under review once we created the new process... I haven't seen him since, but figure I should point you in that direction. D. Matt Innis 23:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Matt. I haven't seen an application from him yet, but I'll keep an eye out. --Joe Quick 13:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Special Thanks

Joe, I thank you for warm welcome. I belong to Sikh religion and i am here to start sikhism related referenced and authentic articles. I seek your help under any unsuitable condition. Thank you (Harpreet Singh 09:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC))

Self-promotion

Hi, Joe, I've mentioned that article you just spotted at the EC wiki. Thanks! Ro Thorpe 00:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help! :) I think that article, the one he created about himself, and the recent article about Fundazione Foucault from a different author can all be promptly deleted by a constable under CZ:Policy_on_Self-Promotion without the EC needing to go through the removal process. Or has responsibility for addressing self-promotion shifted to the EC under the new removal process? -Joe Quick 01:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Deciding about self-promotion and what to do with it is a content decision and should therefore be made by the EC, I think.

Moreover, I think that even in very obvious cases, the decision should not be made by a single person, and the steps taken should be documented.

(This does not hold for vandalism.) --Peter Schmitt 01:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That makes good sense, Peter. I just don't want you all to be burdened with more work than necessary. -Joe Quick 01:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course. But obvious cases do not cause much work. It are the not-so-obvious cases that are a burden ...

(Addendum) That somebody writes about his own work, or about himself, -- taken alone -- is not a reason for deletion -- it depends on how it is done. For instance, some scientists write very good (and neutral) expositions of their work, others don't. --Peter Schmitt 01:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I added a photo to the draft version of the approved "Boiling point" article. How does it get re-approved?

Joe, since I resigned from the MC, I have not kept up with the new policies concerning Approvals. Yesterday, I added a photo to the draft version of the approved "Boiling point" article. How do I go about getting it re-approved now so that the photo will also appear in the Approved version? Milton Beychok 21:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A photo is a very minor change, that really ought not require formal re-approval. Are there also other changes since the last approved version? --Joe Quick 20:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Joe, I reviewed the History page and these are the minor (almost trivial) changes made since the article was approved:

(1) On Feb. 21, 2009; Apr. 17, 2010; and May 1, 2011, I added internal wiki links to other CZ articles.

(2) On Sept. 11, 2009, I added these three words to a sentence naming the Clausius-Clapeyron equation: "this form of".

(3) On August 11, 2011, I replaced an inactive external hyper-link with an active one.

(4) On On Sept. 21, 2010, I improved the vapor pressure chart by placing small black circles on the chart to emphasize the boiling points.

Then, a few day ago, I added the new photo of boiling water to the intro section. As you can see, all of my edits were very minor and trivial (in my opinion). Milton Beychok 21:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, give me a few days to finish up grading for the semester and to consult the new approvals process for what authority I have under the new rules. Then I'll get back to you about whether we even need to go through the formal process. If it seems like it's taking too long, a reminder is probably in order: I tend to lose track of things as things pile up at the end of the semester... --Joe Quick 03:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Joe: You asked me to remind you about the re-approval of Boiling point and so I am doing so. Happy Holidays! Milton Beychok 20:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll need another reminder again in a few days. My semester still isn't quite wrapped up yet. Happy Holidays to you as well! -Joe Quick 20:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have started the approval process in your name, Milton. Moreover, I copied your comments to the Approval page. If Joe (as the Approval Manager) agrees he can finish the process and (re)approve the updated version. --Peter Schmitt 01:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

ASIMO approval

Hello Mr. Joe Quick! I've asked Mr. Beychok if he could start the approval process for ASIMO. He is unsure whether he could start the process as he belongs in the Engineering workgroup. We currently don't seem to have very active editors in the Robotics workgroup. Thank you and happy holidays! (Chunbum Park 08:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC))

I have started the approval process in the name of Chunbum. --Peter Schmitt 00:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Boiling point/Draft is ready for re-approval.

Peter Schmitt opened the Call for Review on Talk:Boiling point/Draft about 5 weeks ago (Dec. 10, 2010) for the re-approval of Boiling point/Draft. Since then, there have been edits suggested by Sandy Harris, Peter Schmitt and Peter Jackson ... all of which were accommodated and resolved about 4 weeks ago.

Could you please implement the re-approval as soon as possible? It seems to me that 5 weeks of review is quite enough. Milton Beychok 03:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Joe, you asked me to keep reminding you about the re-approval of Boiling point ... so I am reminding you once again. Six weeks for review comments have already passed now and that would seem to be more than enough. Milton Beychok 21:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Half a year ago, when he took on this role, Joe did make it clear that he would be taking long leaves of absence from being Approval Manager. At that time everybody thought it a great plan. Am I right in saying that the last half year was a leave of absence? Perhaps it is time to consider whether approvals are really that important to CZ, and if so to consider if we shouldn't get another Approvals Manager. It seems that Approvals Manager has so far been treated as an honourary position, but I am quite sure that most of the remaining Citizens actually think it is a role that carries some responsibility. David Finn 08:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Anthony.Sebastian checking in re second Approval Manager

Joe, I've started reviewing CZ:Approval Process and related pages.

I have made a list of Pages related to approval process on my user page for frequent reference until I learn the ropes.

May I follow your specific assignments at first. Do we need a way to communicate for discussion, etc.? Should we use email? Mine: [email protected] —Anthony.Sebastian 02:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Returning?

Hi - we are softly relaunching this project and are looking for former contributors to return - please do! John Stephenson (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Joe, glad to see you back!

How quickly the years pass! Especially without Howard around to bedevil us! Welcome! Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! A lot has happened -- I completed a PhD in the time I've been gone.

COVID is sure to disrupt my teaching and teaching is bound to take up most of my time in the near future, so I'm sure I won't be super active for a while. But I'll try to find small ways to contribute. --Joe Quick (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Congrats on the PhD, and every little word counts! Hayford Peirce (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back, Joe! And good luck with teaching this year; seems to be an especially challenging time for it. I hope the disruption will evolve, eventually, into some good things. This place will be waiting when you need some escapism.Pat Palmer (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)