User talk:Peter Schmitt
- 1 Waiting for a reply!
- 2 Randomized controlled trial
- 3 Still having trouble nominating Boiling point/Draft
- 4 Re-approval of Boiling point/Draft is still in limbo
- 5 Travelling
- 6 Re failed Approval
- 7 Revision date update for Cypherpunk/Draft
- 8 More crypto articles
- 9 Regarding Passive attack and Active attack
- 10 Did you want to comment on the two articles mostly by Sandy Harris in review for approval?
- 11 Moratorium
- 12 You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2014 election
- 13 Thanks and congratulations
- 14 Some thoughts regarding CZ Forum
- 15 Request for insight from Author Representative
- 16 You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2016 election
- 17 Statement
|<||2009(May19-Dec31) / 2010(Jan01-Aug28) / Sep 2010--2011|
Waiting for a reply!
Peter, we are waiting for a reply at, http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,4237.0.html Please do the needful.-Ramanand Jhingade 17:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Randomized controlled trial
- Robert, we have an "approvals manager" whose task it is to finish the approval. You can ask him about it here. David Finn 07:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- The EC is aware of this issue and will deal with it. --Peter Schmitt 23:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Still having trouble nominating Boiling point/Draft
Somthing different about the metadata page. Will you look at it, and please advise. Thanks. —14:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Re-approval of Boiling point/Draft is still in limbo
Peter, please read Matt's talk page to see why the re-approval of Boiling point/Draft has still not yet been implemented. I think your direction (or at least a comment) is needed to get this done. Milton Beychok 21:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I am travelling right now (for 1-2 weeks) and do not know when (or whether) I'll be online during this period. --Peter Schmitt 11:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Re failed Approval
Peter, thanks for showing me how to fix the Approval template for a dropped case. Anthony.Sebastian 01:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Revision date update for Cypherpunk/Draft
Peter, you recently updated the version to the version dated 07:50, 22 March 2012, but I do not find such version. What am I missing? Anthony.Sebastian 20:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- It is the latest version. You yourself put it into the Metadata but forgot to change the date of the version. (The Approval Manager chooses the version to approve.) --Peter Schmitt 22:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Peter, when I view the latest version of Cypherpunk/Draft and ask for a permanent link, I get:
- Revision as of 23:50, 21 March 2012 by Sandy Harris (Talk | contribs)
When I view the revision history of the latest version, I get:
- (cur | prev) 23:50, 21 March 2012 Sandy Harris (Talk | contribs) (35,815 bytes) (→Expert panels) (undo)
On the metadata page, in the “Required for the ToApprove template” section, I see:
- now = 07:50, 22 March 2012
However, I interpret “now= “ as requiring 23:50, 21 March 2012
So. I still can’t justify “now= 07:50, 22 March 2012” as applicable.
What am I missing? Anthony.Sebastian 14:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- CZ time is UTC, as produced by the automatically generated signatures. Compare this timestamp (15:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)) with the date/time displayed in history listings. Have you set a local time in your preferences? Then history listings show your local time (instead of CZ time) and differs from the timestamp of your signature. --Peter Schmitt 15:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Peter. I have now changed my settings and date corresponds with yours. Anthony.Sebastian 20:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
More crypto articles
Things like RSA algorithm and Diffie-Hellman are near the border between crypto and math, and discrete logarithm is almost entirely math. I think they are reasonable from a crypto point of view, but I wonder how they look to a mathematician. Sandy Harris 05:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Passive attack and Active attack
Peter, as Editor in both Mathematics and Computers, are you willing to serve as first nominator, when the time comes?
I will ask Pat Palmer to support the nomination provided she considers them meritorious, and AM satisfied with all responses/changes. —Anthony.Sebastian 22:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'll write reviews for these two articles (and cryptology) -- whether as "first", second, etc. does not matter: There is no order.
- But since I am still most of the time away and not as often and as long online as usual, I'll need some time. (I'll be offline this week from May 1 to 4. --Peter Schmitt 22:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Peter. "[N]o order", no rush. I can speak to their intelligibility to a non-expert. —Anthony.Sebastian 02:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Did you want to comment on the two articles mostly by Sandy Harris in review for approval?
No one has made substantive comments, and they've been available for review for quite a while. Anthony.Sebastian 21:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- One-time pad was rejected for approval, at least partly because there was no expert review. Anthony made useful suggestions, but he's not an expert in this field. I've reviewed it myself, but I'm the main author. Could you take a look? Sandy Harris 06:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Merry Christmas Peter. The article on Homeopathy has been on a moratorium for the past 2 years. There have been quite a few developments in the field and so I request you to lift the moratorium at least now (or at least tell me where to appeal)!—Ramanand Jhingade 09:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2014 election
You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2014 election. Please visit this page to accept or decline the position. No action will also be treated as declining. If you accept, you may choose to write a statement - see the election page for further details. Alternatively, contact me via my Talk page or privately via e-mail. Regards, John Stephenson 14:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks and congratulations
Peter: I was glad to see you accepting the nomination for membership in the Citizendium Council. Congratulations on winning the seat. We will need your insights and your long experience as a member of Citizendium. I look forward to working with you and the other members of the Council. Anthony.Sebastian 23:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Some thoughts regarding CZ Forum
Hi Peter. I just wanted to share with Council colleagues some thoughts about my recent decision to delete my Forum account.
Request for insight from Author Representative
Hi Peter. I would appreciate your insight and/or feedback regarding a concern I have recently expressed to Constabulary. I value your opinion. Christine Bush 01:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2016 election
You've been nominated as a candidate for the Citizendium Council in the June 2016 election. Please visit this page to accept or decline. No action will also be treated as declining. If you accept, you may choose to write an election statement - see the election page for further details. Alternatively, contact me via my Talk page or privately via e-mail. Regards, John Stephenson (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Considering the state of CZ (number of active citizens) it should be clear that this is not the time for elections and referenda on formal issues or introducing new positions (Editor in Chief). Those who bravely keep the site running should admit that the project has failed, and that there is only one task left to complete: To close CZ in an orderly way and to find a permanent place where the complete database (including history, forum, etc.) will be kept accessible (possibly the internet archive, www.archive.org).
Maybe there should be a place (a group or forum) where the fate of CZ can be discussed, the reasons for its failure can be analyzed, and ideas can be put forward how to realize successfully an alternative to WP.
Some points for such a discussion:
- There is a need for a public domain encyclopedia certified by expert editors.
- WP needs competition -- a monopole is never good.
- One of the errors of CZ (though that may not have been clear from the beginning) was that it is not enough to add a few rules to the mechanics of WP. CZ was and is meant to work essentially like WP. Thus the result will either be very similar to WP, or (as it happened with CZ) the stronger project will dominate and eventually eliminate the weaker copy.
Peter Schmitt (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Remark: I intended to add this statement to the nominations page. However, this page was closed prematurely. Peter Schmitt (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Assuming for the sake of argument that CZ has failed, doesn't it make sense to determine why before deciding whether closing down is the appropriate response?
- I seem to remember there is a Google group for discussion of CZ, intended to replace the old non-Citizens' forum. Of course you have to be a member of Google to join the group, but that's free, isn't it?
- I agree with your first 2 bulleted points. Wikipedia has actually been declining since 2007, but there still isn't a serious general competitor (as distinct from specialist ones). I've been working to improve would-be competitors like this while leaving WP to its own devices for some time now.
- On your 3rd point, have you got any more drastic changes in particular to suggest? Peter Jackson (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I would not be so hasty to seek to close CZ. WP has also been suffering too. Have a read of these recent articles , , . Perhaps there are some important lessons here for CZ. Firstly, DO NOT try and emulate, imitate or be a mirror of WP. If WP has problems, you will suffer the same. Second, be different, be distinctive, be what the internet wants. I guess that means we need to take a different strategy and appeal to users of mobile devices and smart phones. In other words make articles short, and concise and useable in the modern world. We must not abandon the goal of being more definitive and accurate than WP, but CZ must have relevancy. If the EiC's role does just that single thing ... make CZ relevant, then it will make the election/referenda worthwhile. Alan Horton (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Reading the response from Jimmy Wales about the decline in traffic from Google to WP he says that he is not concerned and wants to improve the length and quality of articles. This goes against the "trend" for people to want "instant information" to their smart phones. So there's the "niche" for CZ ... articles written specifically for today's always on the go, always connected to the internet, phones surgically attached type of audience. Alan Horton (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
There is the non-member Google group, which may be used by non-members. As for this discussion, I suggest continuing it on the Management Forum to open it up to a wider audience and avoid cluttering Peter's Talk page. John Stephenson (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)