I have just updated the version to be approved. I also moved the -- very long -- talk page to the Archive for a fresh start. --Peter Schmitt 23:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Message above is "Unless this notice is removed, the article will be approved on 24 May 2010." It is late on the 25th in my timezone. Should the message be changed? Can approval go ahead? Sandy Harris 13:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'll Approve it if Joe Quick says to go ahead. Why don't you message him at User:Approvals Manager. Hayford Peirce 17:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Don't think he's solved it yet, but he is having to get new connectivity at home -- until then, he's limited. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hayford, let me recall you this message: Thanks for taking care of this one in my absence. My internet connection has become really unreliable lately. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 14:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Boris Tsirelson 17:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
- Just for the record: I have carefully restricted myself to copy edits, and avoided any contribution to content. --Peter Schmitt 21:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Peter, I don't think you fully understood: I will Approve this article ONLY when Howard's name is GONE from the list of approving Editors, not with it just being moved to a secondary place. I thought I had made that clear a long time ago, but apparently not. You archived all the earlier discussion about this, which I think was rather hasty.... Hayford Peirce 17:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- I am sorry, Hayford. I think I misunderstood. I thought you were hesitating because of my copy edits. It never occured to me that Howard as an additional Editor was the problem. If I am allowed to approve the article alone: Why should his name matter? Why should fewer supporters be better than less? But in order to obey formalities, I just removed Howard's name.
- I archived the talk page (it is still there) so that the notice announcing the end of discussion will be on the top of a page instead on the bottom of a too long page. --Peter Schmitt 19:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
APPROVED Version 1.0
- Now that I might actualy have time to work on this soon--is it possible to Unapprove the article? I'd like to make substantial revisions. Just for example, there seem to be at least 2 different sections on public-key, which ought IMO to be consolidated, and also, public key is discussed BEFORE the underlying techniques on which it depends (one-way vs. two-way encryption of channels). I will be far less motivated to do this on another draft that has to be approved before it ever sees the light of day, while in the meantime this longer, stringier article sits in the master seat. Anyone?Pat Palmer
- I do not know (or much care) what should be done in relation to approval, especially since the approval system currently appears broken. e.g. see Talk:Steam generator, nominated in February and "Unless this notice is removed, the article will be approved on 17-Apr-2013" but not yet approved. I have made a number of small changes to the draft since approval, though, and would prefer those were not lost.
- There are certainly things that could be improved. For example, zero-knowledge proofs and recent work on authenticated ciphers are not mentioned. Sandy Harris 12:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Proposal for revising this page
Would anyone object if I archived the current version of this article (where we could all get at it--and there is the Citable version as well--and revert it to this version [] which is where it was before a certain person made extensive changes to it, and which changes I felt were not all that helpful? I'd like to continue developing the article and will consider expanding it as needed to encompass most of the current information, but organized quite differently. In particular, I would like the article to begin with the assumption that the reader knows little or nothing, and carefully develop the basic concepts before going to the higher level of complexity (or the article as it now exists). This is one of my main discontents with the article as it now stands. If anyone objects, I will not do it and will seek something else to work on.Pat Palmer 23:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- I do feel the article could be significantly improved and would encourage you to try. However, the version you mention did have some serious problems, most notably to my eye making one-way encryption far too prominent. There is extensive discussion at Talk:Cryptography/Archive 1 including rationale (some likely wrong) for changes made and discussion of some that might have been and weren't. Sandy Harris 02:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- I did a massive rewrite at one point & archived the version I replaced; see the talk page archive for the link.