User talk:Joe Quick/Archive 5

IMPORTANT! Joe, as Approvals Manager, has a new page at User Talk:Approvals Manager. Please use that page instead of this one for any questions, comments, and discussions about any aspects of the approval process that might concern Joe. This page is for all other topics concerning Joe.

Joe Quick

Current talk page

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

Image licenses that read "BlahBlahBlahBlah...."

Joe, a couple of the current image upload options end up with a license that reads "BlahBlahBlahBlahBlah....". Is it the intent that those options will someday be revised to some actual license? Or what? Milton Beychok 19:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, probably. We should make a list of which options produce that result. I can probably do something about it after I get my thesis turned in this Friday. --Joe Quick 00:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Here are the file upload options that use "BlahBlahBlahBlahBlah...." as the license:

• Some other internet source that features re-usable media
• Some book, newspaper, or other print publication, as a scan or screen capture
• Somewhere else, but its copyright has expired, or I think it may have
• I am an author and need to make a fair use (fair dealing) claim
• I am an editor and need to make a fair use (fair dealing) claim

I think I found all of them but I may have missed some. Regards, Milton Beychok 06:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Joe, now that Stephen Ewen is back (thank goodness!), perhaps you could get together with him and get something done about those image file upload licensing options that read "BlahBlahBlahBlahBlah....". Those are sorely needed items. Regards, Milton Beychok 22:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's good news, I hadn't noticed him around yet. I actually just finished off my PhD applications and was planning to return to this in the next couple of days, so the timing is just about perfect. Now, I'm off to read your article on continuous distillation - I'll leave comments there. --Joe Quick 23:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestions for Continuous distillation and have implemented them. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. Milton Beychok 18:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Joe, have you been able to make contact with Stephen Ewen about working on all those file upload license options that only read "BlahBlahBlahBlahBlah...."? If not, could you and Chris work together to solve that problem? Milton Beychok 22:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

brute force attack article approval

Joe, I have now scanned this article and am willing to support its approval if that is still needed. Let me know what I need to do, as I am not up on procedures re: approvals.Pat Palmer 23:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Matt left a note for you on the article's talk page. All you need to do is add your name to the metadata template below Howard's and Milt's --Joe Quick 01:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Joe, way to go. I don't think we would have been able to get everyone together on that one without you pulling the strings. On the next one, I'm going to stay away until I hear from you... unless you need me for something... you can always email me, too. I think our only quark is that you come on after me... D. Matt Innis 00:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re

Joe, can you get some editors to take Clinical decision support system to the approval stage and start the approval process? Thanks. Supten Sarbadhikari 07:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. This might be a good one for the three editor approach, since many people seem to have contributed in one way or another. --Joe Quick 01:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply for editorial request

Hi Joe! Thank you for giving me the opportunity to edit the Waldo Peirce article. I am not competent to contribute to this article. My interest is in post World War II American art. Thank you again. (Marika Herskovic 16:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Hi Joe! Thank you for your trust in me. I shall do my best. I have started an article just now. I will try to complete it in the coming days. Sincerely, (Marika Herskovic 19:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Hi Joe! Could you direct me as to the reference formating. Thank you, (Marika Herskovic 19:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

copied to Marika's page Marika, perhaps we could benefit one another, and CZ, with an actual case study. I'd welcome some review of articles on pastel and charcoal (art), where I do have some inline citations that might be good examples. Your thoughts would be welcome on both using and citing specific commercial information; it's an interesting line to explain that different manufacturers' products have different properties, and when an example is useful without implying endorsement.

While the full citation mechanisms can be complex, the most basic way to do an inline citation (please look at this in page, not edit, mode, as I am using some escape sequences) is:

<ref> reference information</ref>

This will create an inline footnote. The contents of the citation will appear when you put:

<references /> separately, at the bottom of the page This will give single-column format

or

{{reflist|2}}, where 2 can be changed to the number of columns of endnotes you want displayed. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Joe! I started the article: New York School abstract expressionism. I will continue on another occasion. Sincerely (Marika Herskovic 23:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

new editor - thanks!

Hi Joe, thanks for your note to her! Yes, I had already noted her credentials but hadn't yet shifted my mind into gear on the subject -- thanks for doing so! Hayford Peirce 16:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Matt Helm's birthday and signed articles

Yup, that's *much* better. It actually makes sense, hehe! Hayford Peirce 03:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

PS, I wonder, though, if the *other* 8 signed articles have similar problems? Hayford Peirce 04:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I figured that it was probably something like that, just a mistake, I imagine, by whoever it was who created the link in the first place. I should probably have just straightened it out myself, but, on the other hand, this whole "signed articles" business has been contentious at various moments and I didn't want to stir up another hornet's nest. Thanks for the help! Hayford Peirce 15:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Korematsu Reply

I think there may be a bit more to say in that last section about Korematsu in constitutional law, perhaps a paragraph or so about how it hasn't been invoked in recent extrajudicial detention cases. Also, the article could use some embellishment in the way of photos (perhaps one of Fred Korematsu), bibliography, etc. before it's approved. I'm a bit swamped with work this week, but I'll try to get on it soon. On your second question, I would consider being a politics editor. Shamira Gelbman 20:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Coherers

Joe, coherers do not belong to the area I typically work in. I can look into it to verify facts, compare it with other similar articles and to check that it is up to scratch, but this will take time and I can't guarantee that it will get approved any time soon though as this will entail quite a time investment. Cheers, Hendra I. Nurdin 23:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Approval of randomized controlled trial

Please remind me how I start the approval process. I reviewed the template, http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Template:Randomized_controlled_trial/Metadata, but I was not certain how to proceed. Thanks - Robert Badgett 13:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert, you can take a look at the article about approving articles at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Approval_Process You will note that since you, an Editor in the field, have also been the primary Author of this particular article, you yourself will not be able to nominate it for the Approval process -- some other Editor in that Workgroup will have to do that. Best, Hayford Peirce 16:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, you may nominate the article yourself but only if you find two other editors to also nominate. In practice, it has generally been easier to find one uninvolved editor.

On a tangent, now: The rules are somewhat vague when it comes to having one involved and one uninvolved editor but not a third. Technically, the uninvolved editor could do the whole thing without the involved one but the two of them together don't seem to be allowed to do so. We need to address that at some point. --Joe Quick 01:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Image license: CC-BY 2.5

Hi Joe, didn't know how to handle this for Image:Scholarly-journal-map-journal.pone.0004803.g005-scale-0.75.png. Do you have any idea? Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 13:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

How's that? --Joe Quick 13:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 16:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Gasoline

Joe, I made a request for a small rewrite to the phase separation area of Gasoline. The article looks great to me, but it is primarily a Chemical Engineering and first nomination for approval should come from that group if we have another editor there. If not, I will nominate it after Milton addresses the small change I asked about. David E. Volk 15:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There are 4 or 5 other chemical engineers in CZ, but so far they have been inactive. I have tried to reach out to each of them, but without much luck so far. Milton Beychok 17:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this would be a good article to draw their participation. If David nominates the article, then I'll contact each of them and ask if they want to join in on approval. That way, they don't need to do any great amount of work but they'll feel like they participated in an important task. Could you send me names via the email user feature, Milton? Thanks. --Joe Quick 22:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Just go to Category:Chemical Engineering Subgroup and click on members. Thanks for all your help. Milton Beychok 23:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Just had a look. None of them are editors in the Engineering or Chemistry Workgroups, so I can't invite them to add their names to the nomination after all. We can still invite them to help get the article ready or we can choose another article that is close to approval and invite them to help make the final adjustments. What do you think? --Joe Quick 15:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say that asking them to work on other articles would be best as a starter for them. Might not be as "imposing" as working on an article nominated for approval. As for the Gasoline article, you might ask Anthony Argyrou to sign on as a nominator since he has already reviewed the article (see Talk:Gasoline). Milton Beychok 15:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Done! --Joe Quick 04:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What Was Searle's Point?

Joe, Thanks for the addition of Searle's point to the Social world entry, but you may need to add a bit more explanation. What's the point? What is the gentle mockery involved? I'm afraid it's so gentle I don't get it. He moved the modifier social from the subject to the object, but this doesn't seem to change the meaning of the statement much at all, since it is the construction of social reality that Berger & Luckmann addressed. But, in English the phrase the social construction of social reality seems redundant. Is that it? Roger Lohmann 11:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually that part wasn't me. It's funny that you thought it was, though, because I thought of getting out both of those books yesterday to contribute to the article but then got distracted with other things and never got back to the wiki. When I read your note, I was very confused about what had happened. --Joe Quick 13:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple of items

Joe, I did as you suggested and made contact with User:Richard C Mason and invited him to review Conventional coal-fired power plant. See his Talk page.

As you once requested of me, I listed (as the first comment on this Talk page) all of the image licensing options that simply have "Blah Blah Blah Blah ..." for their licenses. When you have the time, could you try to tackle that problem?? It really needs doing. Milton Beychok 06:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've had false starts on that issue a couple of times. Each time, I was discouraged and put off trying a little longer. I'll give it another shot when I can. You should keep pestering me, though. Make sure I actually do it. --Joe Quick 01:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You told me to keep reminding (aka "pestering") you about the image licenses, so I am. Milton Beychok 22:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Good news! I downloaded and installed the wiki software on my personal computer. I should be able to experiment with it and figure out what is needed. --Joe Quick 01:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

These are the pages that need to be changed to stop the upload from pointing to the blahbalhbalh license:

• MediaWiki:Licenses/fairuse-editor
• MediaWiki:Licenses/fairuse-author
• MediaWiki:Licenses/pd-old
• MediaWiki:Licenses/all-reusable

These also need to be created/fixed once the legal stuff is sorted out:

• MediaWiki:Uploadtext/all-reuseable
• MediaWiki:Uploadtext/pd-old
• MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fairuse-author
• MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fairuse-editor

There are probably others (like MediaWiki:Fileuploadsummary/fairuse-editor. --Joe Quick 06:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixing categories

How did you do that so quickly?! I changed ONE, then discovered that I couldn't do the others, then discovered that they had all been changed! Thanks! Hayford Peirce 19:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I use a trick where I open all of the pages in new tabs in my browser window. Then I can fix and save one while the next is loading. --Joe Quick 01:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. You still gotta have quick fingers and quick little gray cells! (Geez, I'm fergettin' wot yer name is!) Hayford Peirce 02:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Re-approval

Hi Joe, I think we have many drafts that have been changed after the latest approval, and I would like to have a tool that makes this process simple. I recently tried it with Johannes Diderik van der Waals, but this doesn't seem to have triggered anything. I think it would be good (for editors) to have the re-approvals included in the "to approve" categories and to have a similar tool (or a very active approval manager) that points constables to those pages that have been re-approved, so that they can finish that. What's your take on this? --Daniel Mietchen 15:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a glitch. The to-approve category doesn't update until someone makes an edit of the talk page. I just made a minor edit to the talk page for van der Waals.

As far as re-approvals go, I'm definitely in favor. We just need to be careful about making sure that if we do a single editor approval, the approving editor did not contribute substantially to previous drafts. This is something we'll need to address for van der Waals, though I'm happy to help find others to support your nomination.

Actually, that brings up an interesting question. If an article has been approved by an uninvolved editor, can/should an editor who contributed to the first approved version but not after the initial approval act as the approving editor for subsequent changes? I think it comes down to whether we consider reapproval as an act of re-approving the whole article or simply an act of approving new changes. I'm not sure what the answer is. For now, let's look for other editors who can pitch in on van der Waals and then maybe start a forum conversation. --Joe Quick 15:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion!

Thanks for the suggestion on the new editor. I'll contact her and offer as you suggest. Meanwhile, would the two of you care to take a look at the Drafts page of Civil society. There are several very substantive additions there that I would like to get some action on, but as you may recall, the editor who originally approved it left in a huff awhile back and we are currently really short of active editors in all three areas. I'm quite willing to add additional things as need be. I'm going to try to finish up work on the subpages sometime soon also; and it may be time to approve at least some of them.

Roger Lohmann 22:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Roger, I think Gene Shackman will be overseeing the reapproval for civil society. This will be his first approval, so we should be ready to provide guidance on the process. --Joe Quick 01:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

subpages template

I was just now revising my own instructions for all of this baloney and I wrote a line that says, "should the Template:Subpagexs template be left at the top of the screen?"

Well, now I'll remove that line from my instructions. Thanks!

I removed it, but only because I was trying to make the formatting come out right. It was that damn {{Approval thing that messed me up -- I *swear* that it was missing! Hayford Peirce 21:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I believe you. I can't help thinking that one of the many templates that has been deleted recently might have been a preload for the approval subpage. It would have inserted the extra text you needed for you before you pasted the text. Do you remember whether there was already text in the edit window when you started that step of previous approvals? --Joe Quick 01:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't remember whether the Approval template was there or if I had to copy it from the metadata page of the article to be approved. Matt would know.... In any case, I'm gonna rewrite the instructions so that it's copied from the metadata. Grrrrrrr! Hayford Peirce 02:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The {{Approval is not preloaded. It has to be typed in. Sorry for the confusion. Hopefully the new instructions make that clearer! D. Matt Innis 03:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that; you'd got me worried there about having deleted too many templates! Caesar Schinas 06:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's good to know. The templates involved with subpages aren't always so obvious in terms of what they do or why. --Joe Quick 13:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for Approval, or Re-Approval, or anything else concerning the Approvals Manager

We have created a new page for Joe, the Approvals Manager, at User Talk:Approvals Manager. Henceforth, please use that page instead of this one for any questions, comments, and discussions about any aspects of the approval process that might concern Joe. This page is for all other topics concerning Joe. Thanks! Constable Hayford Peirce 17:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Block cipher

Do you have time to take another look at that? Sandy Harris 07:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Media licence consolidation

Joe, I think you've been working on the upload wizard lately, so you're probably the right person to ask this...
I thinnk the media licence templates could do with a lot of decluttering, as I've been doing with the other templates.
Can you see any disadvantage, for example, in consolidating most if not all of the 39 Creative Commons licence templates into one, with parameters to tell it which licence was wanted?
So for example, the code {{CC-by-sa-3.0}} or {{CC-by-sa-3.0-us}} might be replced by {{CC|by-sa|3.0}} and {{CC|by-sa|3.0|us}}, respectively.
Can you see any drawbacks to this? Caesar Schinas 15:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do consolidate those if you have the time. That's what I wanted to do to begin with, but then the person who was heading up the project to get that stuff together wanted them separated for some reason. You might look at consolidating other templates as well, such as the two fair use templates I've been working on recently or maybe the public domain templates.

Just don't mark anything for deletion or do anything to break the current templates yet. We will need to change the instructions for upload and update the templates used on photos already uploaded before we get rid of the old templates. --Joe Quick 16:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also make sure that we will easily be able to add new options to the Creative Commons template as new images are imported under different variations of the licenses (different countries, different versions, etc.) --Joe Quick 16:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Joe, please have a look at {{CC}} and User:Caesar Schinas/sandbox. Caesar Schinas 16:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good so far. I'm going to take a break for a few hours. --Joe Quick 17:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I think I've finished {{CC}}. I've altered all the CC-by templates so that they transclude it. I thought I'd better let you have a look before I do the same for the remaining CC templates. Caesar Schinas 07:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That looks great, Caesar. The next step is to replace all current uses of the old templates. Could you run a bot to do that? I would think it would be fine to run a bot from your account as long as you let people know ahead of time. I'll see what needs to be done with the upload settings, though it might be a little time before I can get it all finished up. --Joe Quick 03:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I wonder if I can get away with just going ahead with this, or if someone who hasn't yet answered me about botsscripts will turn up and make a fuss... :-/

Perhaps I'll just do it, starting with templates which aren't used on may articles, such as CC-by-1.0...

Caesar Schinas 06:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well' I'm running my script on a few templates. We'll see what happens. If anyone wants me to stop just leave a note on my talk page or send me an email. Caesar Schinas 06:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced all the CC-by templates on all images. I don't know what needs to be done to stop the image upload wizard from adding them to new images, but the sooner it can be done the better... Then these templates can be deleted.

I'll do the same for the other CC templates soon.

Caesar Schinas 08:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to keep you up to date... I have now replaced all uses of all the CC templates. There were a lot more than I expected... Caesar Schinas 13:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've marked all the lowercase redirects (Cc-by-xx redirecting to CC-by-xx) for speedydeletion, and for all the templates themselves I've just made them transclude CC, as the upload wizard will still be adding them to things (grr...) Caesar Schinas 15:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'll address the upload wizard situation as soon as I can find time. Thanks for all your work. --Joe Quick 17:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem while uploading an image from Flickr

I just uploaded a photo from Flickr. When I went to the page for creating a credit line (to give attribution to the copyright holder), that page lacked the template and the instructions that are usually on the credit line page. I have uploaded so many images that I knew the template needed and how to use it ... but newcomers would be lost at that point. Milton Beychok 04:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

See the note Milton Beychok left on my talk page. I would bet the problem he found has something to do with the changes you've been making to templates, though I don't know where the problem may have cropped up. Do you remember changing something that might have been involved? — Joe Quick 15:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC), User talk:Caesar Schinas

I did see this, but... I don't think I can have made any changes which would affect it. Do you know what the template in question is?

Caesar Schinas 15:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I'm about to head out for brunch, but I'll try to figure it out later today. --Joe Quick 15:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Templates

IS there any difference in usage between {{Copyrighted}} and {{Bypermission-noreuse}}, or can I merge them? Caesar Schinas 09:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Dunno. I'll look later today if I can find a few minutes. --Joe Quick 15:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Upload Wizard

Hi Joe,
What do you think of my initial draft of a new, simplified upload wizard, at User:Caesar_Schinas/Upload?
Oh, and I ought to let you know that I have made quite a few changes to the code behind the existing one, in case you wonder what's going on when you next look at it...
Caesar Schinas 17:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a good strategy. We do need to make sure that people are presented with easy and obvious choices for a few common sources like flickr and wikimedia commons. --Joe Quick 20:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of possibly having the option "The work is available under a licence which permits reuse. (eg Flickr, Wikimedia, etc)" go to a second page where the user can choose where it came from. I think it is important to keep the first page as uncluttered as possible to avoid confusion; a lot of people can't figure out the current wizard. Caesar Schinas 07:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Can we develop the whole system in your user space and then move it over? I don't want to make the upload wizard more confusing before we make it better. --Joe Quick 16:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was my intention.

But Paul Wormer reckons it's still to complicated, so on his suggestion I have tried creating one with a simpler first step - User:Caesar Schinas/Upload2. I'm not mad about it... What do you think?

Caesar Schinas 17:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In any case, let's make sure that it actually reads: "The work is available under a licence that permits reuse. (eg Flickr, Wikimedia, etc)"! The old Which/That Nazi, Hayford Peirce 17:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As a Brit, I maintain that that is very unusual, if not incorrect, in British English, and I think that CZ policy is for the creator's language to be used, isn't it? Caesar Schinas 17:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on being the first person to use the new Upload Wizard! What did you think of it? Caesar Schinas 09:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It was pretty smooth. Actually, I used it because I couldn't remember how to upload public domain photos in the old one and I knew it was easier with your new setup.

I was thinking that the buttons/links on the very first page weren't totally obvious. Could they be made into more obvious button-looking links next to the message on the very first page?

One other thing: the image notes asked me to edit the page and record who owns the copyright or why it is not applicable but I didn't see a place to do that. I assume that you meant to build that into the code for public domain images and I looked at the code but wasn't sure what to insert or where.

All in all, it looks really good. Just a few kink left to be worked out :-) --Joe Quick 14:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there something about kinks in the family-friendliness policy? :-) (A kink also is a perfectly valid thing to happen to a rope, especially a wire one.)

Serious question: often, with government images, there really isn't a source for date, perhaps because no copyright is claimed. Should date be mandatory if there is no copyright claim? Howard C. Berkowitz 14:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it should be strongly encouraged at least. When a date isn't available, then we obviously can't supply one, but whenever we have one, we should use it. --Joe Quick 16:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll think about the first page and see what I can do. I hope to eventually add some styles to common.css which will allow the buttons to provide feedback when hovered, making the interface more intuitive.
PD images have no copyright holder, so you shouldn't be asked for one. I'll have a look and see what the problem is; thanks for letting me know.
I'm not sure about dates on PD images - I don't see that they're needed except for copyright-expired images. But you can always just put unknown or even - gasp - leave it blank...
Caesar Schinas 10:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Dates aren't super important for the legal side of public domain images, but they should be included for the benefit of anyone who wants to reuse them and even for people browsing our images here. Dates set an important context for images of people and things that evolve or change over time. --Joe Quick 15:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I revised CZ:Article of the Week. Provided a place for anyone to simply make nominations. Then the program Administrators will do the transclusions.

I just revised the CZ:Article of the Week to provide a place (and instructions) for any CZ author or editor to simply add the names of new nominees.

I did NOT make any revisions to the transcluded versions of the articles that were added by Daniel Mietchen, Caesar Chinas or myself. All I did was provide a new section where anyone can simply add new nominees without having to transclude them.

I also reworded some section headers (and relocated one section) to make clear that Administrators of the "Article of the Week" initiative would do the transclusions.

I did that because I felt many authors and editors would be reluctant to make nominations if they had to do the transclusion themselves.

I asked Caesar Chinas to review my revision. After he does, I will also revise CZ:New Draft of the Week similarly. Milton Beychok 23:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We need some feedback

Joe, please look at This thread in the forums. We need some feedback in that thread. Milton Beychok 06:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)