User talk:Peter Schmitt/Archive 2

The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.

Peter Schmitt

Current talk page

1, 2, 3

 Where Peter lives it is approximately: 00:03

<						2009(May19-Dec31) / 2010(Jan01-Aug28) / Sep 2010--2011

Charter: OV Draft Feedback // CD RS // C1 C2 C3 C4 // my comments on current draft / my draft / my NEW draft / my feedback

---

Catalog discussion

Hi, Peter, you might take a look at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Singer-songwriter#What_.22Catalogs.22_are.2C_or_can_be where we're also discussing Catalogs. Hayford Peirce 17:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Hayford, but I know. It is my fault that it spreaded to crime fiction, I fear. --Peter Schmitt 19:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick's talk page discussion

I replied on Nick's page. D. Matt Innis 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

tennis template

Hi, Peter, thanks for the help! If you look at the final result at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Tennis/Catalogs/Famous_players things now look just about perfect. Except, I think, there's no very pale blue in the National #1 Player box, (it's hard for me to tell), and there's also an unnecessary horizontal line across the Biographical section. Both can be left as are. If they can be corrected, so much the better but it's not, in my judgment, essential. Right now, I'm through fiddling, so if you want to try to fix those two other elements, I won't be conflicting with you. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 22:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, again, it looks as it you've got it! Hayford Peirce 23:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

write-a-thon

Thanks for helping Aleta, I was just off to do it and found that you beat me to it. :) Chris Day 17:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's worse than we thought

Peter, head on back to my talk page. I'm going for coffee--or one of Hayford's martinis! Aleta Curry 22:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Direct 8

I think I got it all. I don't do it often enough, so you might want to double check. Had to move and merge all the subpages, too. D. Matt Innis 18:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Subpages and Properties

Hi Peter,

Just thought I'd post this:

http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,3054.0.html

here for you in case you were willing to relocate our discussion over there...--David Yamakuchi 01:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please look at revised lede for pH and explanation on Talk page

Peter, I revised the led for the pH article somewhat and explained why on the Talk page. You may be interested in that. Milton Beychok 04:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Google/stupid

Or possibly even Sociology instead of Media in the workgroups. Does this relate to media more than education? Chris Day 17:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know -- the influence of the web/internet is certainly a central topic, thus "media". But when I look at the existing "media" articles it is more on the business or technical side. (It seems "Media" is not too well defined ...) On the other hand, is it "Education" proper? Or (general) education as included in Sociology? But I really think that Psychology and Sociology are the the two most appropriate groups. --Peter Schmitt 20:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that Psychology and Sociology are probably the two main groups. The third is probably a toss up and I don't have any strong opinion. Chris Day 21:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Offline

Notice: I shall be offline for one week until the end of February. --Peter Schmitt 23:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Redlinks and lemma articles

Hi Peter, I saw that you have been critical of CZ:Lemma articles, so I would appreciate your comments on this thread at the Forums. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 09:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been away for one week, but I will try to catch up with the formum (and elsewhere).

I would not say that I criticized lemma articles -- it rather was that I did not see a real purpose that could not be also done with stubs. But Howard convinced me that -- for some topics -- they are really usefully (though I am not yet sure if I fully understand why). --Peter Schmitt 22:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Munchausen

Peter, user:Bessel Dekker pointed out that the fictive character has a name with two spelling "mistakes" (if one may say so in a name). The mistakes are: no umlaut and single h. I checked it and think Bessel is right. You moved the article, but don't you think it should be moved back?--Paul Wormer 09:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

First I only noticed it as a typo. But then I tried to check it: WP uses the correct German spelling, and Google shows that several versions are used in English (though it always seems to be the "Munchausen syndrom"). Thus, I think it best to let the various versions point to the original. (But even without this argument I would prefer it this way. I think it is more consistent and "professional".) --Peter Schmitt 00:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Peter, look at the article, it reprints the title page. The author (Rappe) chose the name of the fictive person different from the name of the historic person. He could have changed the name even more, say Möncheuser, would you then still insist on the name of the historic person? --Paul Wormer 06:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected: You are right. I was not aware that the English book was the first using the name. Moreover, the articles in WP -- both the English and the German version seem to be inaccurate. Even my "Kindlers Literatur Lexikon" spells the English title as "Munchhausen"... --Peter Schmitt 17:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Need your help with Fluid dynamics article

Peter, I need your help with the Fluid dynamics article:

• Look at the reference/footnote 3 which is a one-sentence definition of what is meant by "well-posedness" in mathematics. Is it correct? If not, please correct it.

• The article needs a similarly brief definition of what is meant by "smoothness" in mathematics. Can you please let me have your brief definition (one or two sentences) of "smoothness"?

Thanks very much for any help you can give me. Milton Beychok 21:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Games Workgroup

Hi Peter, You're currently listed as the only active Games Editor, however your page and editing history doesn't seem to indicate much interest there. I was just wondering if you still consider yourself affiliated with the workgroup and if so in what areas? Chris Key 19:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Chris! Games are also a topic in mathematics. That was the main reason for checking the "Games" box when I registered. However, I indeed have some interest and some experience in board games (and similar). (I was a reasonably good amateur in Go.) My knowledge and experience in computer games is restricted to some very early games. Nevertheless, if needed I'll try to help as an Editor as good as I can. (Until very recently there was no activity in Games at all.) --Peter Schmitt 19:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Thanks for the reply. Yes, I noticed the lack of activity in the Games section. Whilst I am new to CZ I am throwing myself into it and see this as a long term hobby rather than just a short 'something to do'. I am going to try to drum up some interest in the games workgroup, perhaps get things going a bit. It does however seem that an editor is required for several things, which is why I wondered how much your editorial interest in the area. I considered applying for editorship myself, at least in the area of video games if nothing else, however I don't think I meet enough of the criteria in non-academic editor requirements. Chris Key 20:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Video Games Subgroup

Hi Peter, You may have noticed that I recently set up the video games subgroup. I did this for a few reasons:

• Video games inherently are a crossover of the Games Workgroup and the Computers Workgroup.
• People with an interest in video games often (definately not always) have relatively less interest in non-video games. When they see a workgroup full of discussions about chess, poker, blind mans buff and barbie dolls they can be instantly turned off becoming involved.
• Video games require their own categorisation that do not apply to other games (eg first-person shooter, sideways scrolling playform, etc)
• It would be useful to get some standardisation amongst all video game articles. However, these standards would not apply to non-video games.

I intend for this subgroup to be affiliated with the Gaming and Computers workgroups. As you are the only active editor in the games workgroup, you are the only person authorised to [and implement the affiliation] for that workgroup. If you do indeed approve of the affiliation, then please could you do this? If you feel happy to approve of the affiliation with the Computers workgroup then I would appreciate it if you implemented that one as well. Thanks --Chris Key 20:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Chris, Video Games are certainly a legitimate subgroup. But I'll have to do some reading first, about what I have to do and how. --Peter Schmitt 22:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting topic for articles. I used to play strategy video games such as Empire, Age of Empires, and Twenty Wargames. Cool topic.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 22:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. I think you'll find all the information you need here. Seems reasonably straight forward. --Chris Key 08:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Plane

Peter, I wrote plane. Could you comment on it? I like to insert it into plane (geometry).

Offline

Notice: I shall be offline all or most of the next (up to about) 10 days. --Peter Schmitt 00:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, I think I'd rather spend 10 days in a coma! Enjoy! Hayford Peirce 00:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if you travel? --Peter Schmitt 00:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to say thanks! (If we don't like the weather we may be back earlier ... ) --Peter Schmitt 00:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Traveling these days is so actively unpleasant that I'd definitely prefer to be in a coma! Unless I could be teleported to the Georges Cinq in Paris, perhaps.... Hayford Peirce 01:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

10 hours offline is hard enough... have fun though! --Chris Key 10:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you bring us back something? Hmmm, what would we like. Hmmm. Pictures? Have a good time.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 10:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks to all"
A delayed reply: If you are talking about travelling by plane then I agree (almost): It is (and always was) unpleasant because I often felt like a piece of luggage ... and it has become even more unpleasant because of all these security restrictions and checks. (But for some purposes one has to fly, nevertheless.)
Travelling by car, on a day by day basis, from a sight to a museum to a good restaurant ... can be rather pleasant. --Peter Schmitt 14:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Peter, how about a travel (by car on a day's trip) to Boltzmann's grave and bringing us back a souvenir?--Paul Wormer 16:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I haven't forgotten this. But I don't like to do it in bad weather (it would be by tram and on foot, on the other side of Vienna), and I am also waiting for a convenient occasion. But it could well be before the Charter is ready :-) --Peter Schmitt 16:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cryptography

Welcome back. Could you have a look at Cryptography? It is in a near-approvable state, I think, but needs a look from a mathematics editor. Sandy Harris 02:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

So far I have only browsed the article (it is quite long), and shall read it more thoroughly in the next days. But probably I shall have a few comments, at most. It is a general article, not a mathematical page. There could be a Mathematical cryptography accompanying it. --Peter Schmitt 11:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there could. I'm not sure it would be needed, though. A lot of the math goes in other articles, some of which are written and in need of review — RSA, Diffie-Hellman, birthday attack, ... — while others incomplete — cryptanalysis, stream cipher, history of cryptography, .. — and most of the ones that need really heavy math not even started — linear cryptanalysis, differential cryptanalysis, ... Sandy Harris 07:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please look at my comment about the "Examples" section on Talk:Greatest common divisor

Hi, Peter. Please take a look at what I wrote about the "Examples" section of Greatest common divisor. I would value your thoughts about my suggestion. Milton Beychok 20:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Photo Boltzmann

Hi Peter, I would choose photo B for the entropy article (it gives the formula and the the life span of Boltzmann). For an article on Boltzmann as a person I would probably prefer the whole grave including the tulips. Will you adapt entropy (thermodynamics) (note 15)? Thank you.--Paul Wormer 06:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I put your name in the credit line and gave it PD (other options are CC and C).--Paul Wormer 14:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ellipse

Peter, did you think about approving the Ellipse? Boris Tsirelson 06:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The template used in Psi (unit)/Definition

The Psi (unit)/Definition lemma article reads:

In physics, the abbreviation of "pounds per square inch": A non-standard unit of pressure; 1 psi equals 6.895 kPa (kiloPascal); see: U.S. customary unit.

That has a minor error in that the referenced article name is U.S. customary units. U.S. customary unit is only a redirect. If one wishes to correct that error and goes to the Edit page at here, one finds:

In physics, the abbreviation of "'''p'''ounds per '''s'''quare '''i'''nch": {{def|pounds per square inch}}

and one cannot correct the error because there is no instruction as to how to find that template at the end of the sentence. It is somewhere in the bowels of CZ. And even if found, would one know how to change the template? If a newly devised template is used, then there should be at least a commented section explaining how to find the template and how to revise it. By a commented section, I mean :

<!-- The above template can be found at xxxxxx and this is how to revise it if needed: xxxxx -->

I realize that the difference between using the correct article name or the redirect is trivial. But this devising and use of a new template with no discussion or explanation of where it is located or how it works is is not trivial. It is very frustrating to find that one cannot go to the edit page and make a simple correction because it is in a template. It is very poor practice and should not occur. Peter, I hope that you agree with me. Milton Beychok 17:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Peter however I have fixed the link for you. Whenever you see a template in use it will be in the format {{templatename}}, {{templatename|variable}}, {{templatename|variable1|variable2}}, and so on. You can then edit that template by going to Template:templatename, so in the case of {{def|pounds per square inch}} you would go to Template:def. However, that particular template retrieves its information from the /Definition page of the article that is named after the pipe (|). Therefore, the page needed to edit the link is pounds per square inch/Definition. Hope that helps. --Chris Key 17:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Milton, I am sorry that I did not recognize that I linked to a redirect (I think I copied the link from the definition and only moved it to a new place). I agree with you (and have made comments in this sense) during our discussion. Obviously I overlooked the "redirected" message on top of the page when I followed it.

However, I did not use a new template, {{def}} is an old template -- a variant of the r-template -- explained on CZ:Definitions. As Chris already explained, it is the definition that carries the content -- the template only displays it.

--Peter Schmitt 18:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent)Chris, thanks much for your help. I'm sure that for someone with education and training in computer science (like yourself), the fixing of the error was very easy and very simple. But we are not all computer gurus. When I go to Template:def and to its edit page, I cannot see how in the world you figured out that one had to go to Pounds per square inch/Definition ... I wasn't even aware that there was a Pounds per square inch/Definition as well as a Psi (unit)/Definition. This gets more and more convoluted.

Rather than all of this confusion, redundant lemma articles and detective work, I am going to revise the edit page of Psi (unit)/Definition to read:

In physics, the abbreviation of "'''p'''ounds per '''s'''quare '''i'''nch": A non-standard unit of pressure; 1 psi equals 6.895 kPa (kiloPascal); see: [[U.S. customary unit]].

The resulting display on the main lemma page will remain exactly as it now is and without using a template. In this case , writing out what is wanted rather than using a template is much more simple and less confusing.

Peter, don't you think that the Pounds per square inch/Definition can be deleted? Why have both Pounds per square inch/Definition as well as a Psi (unit)/Definition? Milton Beychok 18:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Milt, you are right. It was unnecessarily complicated to use the Def-template. The intention (and advantage) is small: to synchronize the definitions. I did not want to confuse you.

It was Daniel who created this definition, so it would be better to ask him. I only happened to take it as an example for our forum discussion on lemmas and links. I do not have any specific interest in this particular definition.

However, personally I think that it does not hurt to have this definition. Someone might want to use it on a Related Articles - and that's what they are meant for. (They might, in the future, also be used to build some structured index.)

As for the page: My personal order of preference is (1) delete it (creating a red link), (2) redirect to the definition (give the essential information, and let the user choose between forward and backward), (3) redirect to the section (as you did), (4) and least: a lemma article. But this is just my opinion. I will not meddle with it. --Peter Schmitt 23:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we do not need identical versions of Pounds per square inch/Definition and Psi (unit)/Definition, so I will make a suggestion as to how to structure them (learning by doing; it's good to exercise this with one example first) and also catch up on the forums discussion. Both later, not today. --Daniel Mietchen 00:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Neighborhood (topology)

Good job, Peter! Keep writing!! D. Matt Innis 01:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Countable set

Peter, Countable set is to approve. Please look the section "Real numbers"; there it is written once (in text) $0<r<1$ and another time (in the display) $0\leq r<1$. Also, the lead: is it clear enough that the one-to-one mapping is just to ("into"?), not necessarily onto? And "from the set" could be better (? or not?) "from the given set". Boris Tsirelson 17:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Boris. I have made a few minor copyedits. As for the lead: I think I used "one-to-one ... from ... to" to stay with common language as much as possible (and avoiding onto, but also into), and because it does not matter if "one-to-one" is read as bijective or as injective. I now changed it to "between" -- do you think that this is an improvement? --Peter Schmitt 00:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is just that it does matter; if "bijective" then the set must be countably infinite, it cannot be finite. Boris Tsirelson 02:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. After reading the article I simply had forgotten that the article is about both cases when I wrote the above (and recalled only this morning). Does this show that some examples of finite sets should be added? Moreover, doesn't the original sentence just say the right thing? --Peter Schmitt 09:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. And still, the lead could be more accessible that the article as whole. Why not write in plain English, that elements of the given set are numbered by some, pairwise different, integers, but the used integers are just a subset, be it finite or not, an interval or not... Something user friendly in this spirit? Accessible even for a man not experienced in reading such things as "a map from A to B". I know that non-mathematicians routinely miss a point if it is stated only once, the more so if implicitly. Of course it would be too much for the article, but maybe for the lead? Boris Tsirelson 14:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

In order to make it more obvious that we are also talking about finite sets I added few basic examples. What do you think? Can you think of some more illustrative examples? --Peter Schmitt 10:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

As for me, it is quite enough. About the last example (sum of two primes...) please give me some source; maybe I heard it somewhere, but to be sure I need a source. Boris Tsirelson 14:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the Goldbach conjecture. --Peter Schmitt 23:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter, I know you meant well , but

Peter, Paul Wormer and I have become quite good friends over the past 2 or more years. I know that you meant well when you said on his user page that his concerns are "unfounded". But that was the wrong thing to say because Paul strongly believes otherwise and I agree with his concerns as well. Telling him that they were unfounded is like telling him that he was wrong and he was not. Regards, Milt Beychok

Thank you for this warning, Milt. You may relay my regrets to him. I fully agree that one must have the right to call nonsense "nonsense". --Peter Schmitt 12:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Article Approved

Congratulations, Peter, I have just Approved [1]! Hayford Peirce 21:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please join with me in urging Hayford not to resign

Peter, see my plea to Hayford not to resign as Constable (on his Talk page). Please join me! Milton Beychok 20:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Geometric sequence

Approved! Your on a roll! D. Matt Innis 22:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Geometry à l'anglaise

Hello, Peter. Please see totally unsatisfactory reply at my talk page. Ro Thorpe 01:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

World of Warcraft

World of Warcraft is now, in my opinion, ready for approval, but as I have been heavily involved with authoring the article I cannot nominate it for approval alone. You probably don't consider yourself enough of an expert on the topic to nominate it, however as you are the only other active Games Editor I thought I would give you the heads up in case I am wrong. --Chris Key 08:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to read it first, and in view of the Charter discussions this may take some time. I do not need to be an expert in WoW to judge how it looks to an "outsider" (it's better to not be an expert for this), and whom else should one trust that the "inside" information is correct than someone who knows the game intimately? It has to be checked if it is too much of a fan article, though. --Peter Schmitt 11:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, take all the time you need. I have aimed to keep the article neutral and hopefully you will find it acceptable. It is a shame that there is no mechanism for two Editors to approve an article for situations like this - one an expert on the specific subject but also an author for the article, the other an Editor for the workgroup but not as intimately knowledgeable on the specific topic. It would in some ways seem more suitable. There is of course the option of group approval, but that would require a third editor. --Chris Key 13:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Covariance (look now)

Peter, please look at my two simple remarks to Covariance; it should be approved tomorrow. Boris Tsirelson 12:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Boris. I have seen it but was too engaged in discussions. Do you follow the forum, or the Charter drafting? It is rather time-consuming. Thus I have to apologize that I have neglected Line and Plane, too. --Peter Schmitt 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not; instead I hope you represent my interests there :-)

About "on the same sample space (with respect to the same probability distribution)" I bother: for many readers "distribution" is associated with a random variable only; they will think you speak about two identically distributed random variables. Boris Tsirelson 05:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Covariance

Another one for you! Where *do* you find the time :-) D. Matt Innis 03:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of it was done in less "stormy" days (a year ago, and in January). The progress is due to Boris, who took the initiative. --Peter Schmitt 12:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Boris has figured it out! Hopefully, you won't be held captive much longer :) But, it has been a few years since my approvals! I'm thinking that it won't be long till we'll have some three editor collaborations in the mathematics workgroup that are a lot more fun, too. D. Matt Innis 17:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Cryp. article at [2] approved

Congratulations, Peter, we've finally got the article approved! Sorry for the various delays.... Hayford Peirce 21:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Set theory

.. is approved. Good work, both initially and through the controversy. Are you ready for another one?! D. Matt Innis 21:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Version 1.0 of Line Approved

Hi, Peter, I've Approved Version 1.0 Hayford Peirce 17:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

PS -- metadata for Editors

Hi, Peter -- someone seems to have removed an instruction that was on the Metadata Edit page for while: when you're putting your name in as Editor in the ToApprove section, please just put in Peter Schmitt, not [x[Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] or anything with brackets and/or pipes in it. At the start of CZ, apparently, this was the way it was supposed to be done, then at some point, apparently, it was changed. When a Constable does the Approval process, he has to get rid of the brackets and pipes at some point, so they might as well not be there to start with. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 17:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I used ~~~ (instead of four) and thought this would do what was wanted. --Peter Schmitt 22:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Managing Editor rewritten

In my opinion, this change here makes it ambiguous as to who can vote. It implies that a simple majority of the Management Committee, rather than all Citizens, is what is needed. --Chris Key 00:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Working harder ==--Peter Schmitt 23:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter, did you see my remarks to Compact space and Vector space? Boris Tsirelson 06:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Boris. I saw your edits, but since no immediate action seems necessary I did not comment or react. I'll deal with "Plane" or "Ellipse" next. --Peter Schmitt 23:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Doom approved

Hi, Peter, this Version 1.0 was just Approved. Congratulations! Hayford Peirce 18:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, bit I only helped, very little. --Peter Schmitt 18:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the lordly Instructions for the Constables about How to Approve an Article say that the last step is to congratulate the Editors and principle Authors. Just one more thing for us weary cops to do.... Hayford Peirce 16:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that step is really necessary. An overall 'congratulations everybody' on the article's talk page should be sufficient, as anyone who significantly worked on it and those involved in it's approval will probably have that on their watchlist anyway, or at least be keeping an eye on it. Consider the possibility that a lot of people get together and collaborate on an article, then it gets approved and suddenly you have twenty principle Authors to congratulate. Also, there is the possibility of somebody being missed, or feeling disappointed that their single (but valuable) contribution wasn't enough to get them a congratulations. --Chris Key 17:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm just kidding a little. The Instructions *say* that -- it doesn't mean that I'm actually going to always do it. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. It depends on my mood. And if, as you say, there are 20 principle authors involved, I'm *certainly* not going to bother. With one Editor and one Author, however, it isn't too much extra work. Generally.... Hayford Peirce 17:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Renewable energy Metadata template

Peter, just so you know. Karl D. Schubert *has not yet indicated* that he would like to be an approval nominator for this article. I was just testing to see if the template will accept 4 nominators ... and it doesn't appear to do so. Milton Beychok 00:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why the Metadata page does not show the added information after I modified Template:Metadata (as I expected). But you certainly can add such a line (if you wish) to store the information, and there will be a way to show it on the Metadata (and on the subpages/approval template) if this is wanted (later). I have removed Karl's name. The empty field is enough for testing purposes. --Peter Schmitt 00:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The following trick works: It is enough to add a fourth name to the editor3 field: Then it is shown even in the approval template:

  ToA editor3 = Third Editor and Fourth Editor

--Peter Schmitt 00:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter, thanks but I would rather not unilaterally try any tricks. I talked this over with Matt Innis and he feels we should wait and see if Karl does want to be a nominator. If so, I could always let his name replace mine. Milton Beychok 01:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It didn't work because the template you alter is not Template:Metadata but Template:Metadata2, which I've altered to allow 4 Editors. So now if you put

|ToA editor4 = Fourth Editor

then it will show up on the Metadata. If we want the other templates to show this 4th Editor (or a 5th) then we'll need some forum feedback and then I'll do it.

Putting two Editor's names on one line is a bad idea, as it breaks the links. --Chris Key 08:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Chris. I suspected something like this (another template, or a second template), but it already was late in the night, and I did not want to search ... (I still do not understand where this template is called, so just looking it up was not possible.) --Peter Schmitt 11:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure, it certainly isn't intuitive - perhaps Chris Day would know the answer. When looking for any template connected with metadata/subpages, the best place to start is the documentation at Template:Subpages. --Chris Key 11:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, now I see. I was "blind" and did not see that Template:*/Metadata calls the subpages template at the end. I only saw the #switch template and wondered how something else was inserted ... --Peter Schmitt 11:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent)As a sideline issue, from a constable's perspective, I see no problem using a multiple editor approval that includes more than three editors as our CZ:Approval Process only states a 'Multiple editor approval'. However, it only makes sense that it will require that ALL the editors that are on the list endorse the version in the template for the same reasons that we need all three editors to note their endorsement as well. We probably need to make that a little more clear in the instructions. If at approval time, the fourth or even fifth editor has not checked in, their names would have to be removed. It's already problem enough to get three to check in on the last version. I imagine it could get exponentially more complicated as we add editors. D. Matt Innis 12:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have wondered if we should make this explicit on the metadata, perhaps by adding a few more fields. For example:

<!--required for ToApprove template-->
|    article url = http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Arthur_J._Altmeyer&oldid=100679460
|    subpage url = 
|        cluster = http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Arthur_J._Altmeyer&oldid=100679460
|            now = June 8, 2010
|     ToA editor = Russell D. Jones
|   Ed1 approves = http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Arthur_J._Altmeyer&oldid=100679460
|    ToA editor2 = Roger Lohmann
|   Ed2 approves = http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Arthur_J._Altmeyer&oldid=100679082
|    ToA editor3 = Howard C. Berkowitz
|   Ed3 approves = http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Arthur_J._Altmeyer&oldid=100679460
|           date = June 15, 2010 

From this you can quickly see that Russell and Howard have approved a new version, but Roger hasn't indicated his approval of the updated version yet. Perhaps this may be getting too complicated though... --Chris Key 13:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to try and make it easier for an expert with no computer knowledge than to make it faster for the constable at this point. I think we lose valuable people because they don't understand the templates. I wonder if a lot of developed articles would be approved if experts that join the project had an easier way to say they like an article right on the talk page. D. Matt Innis 14:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. One step towards this will be when I get the MetadataForm extension up and running when I finally get all the unit tests working. In its first version it will make the metadata a lot easier for authors. Future versions will allow Editors to nominate articles easier, and then Constables to carry out the approval process easier. --Chris Key 15:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

DNS

Are the changes you wanted made? I was a little unclear what you had in mind (and the level of detail) about the creation of new TLDs.

The broken link is fixed and I elaborated on zone vs. domain in several places.Howard C. Berkowitz 15:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reference 6 still leads to "ISC has a new website".

The paragraph on new TLDs is not what I meant (it partially duplicates "Legal and business issues".) I do not think of any details, only that the article should mention since when (200x?) new ones were added to the initial set, and that .biz and .aero were among them. (I do not dare to do it myself ...).

I'm still not seeing what you have in mind. There were more than .biz and .aero; I don't propose to list all non-regional TLDs except the original historical set.

I doubt that the analogy between domains and CZ namespaces is straightforward and helpful. Wouldn't the domains be rather all possible namespaces, the zones be the existing namespaces, and the articles the webpages that can be found on a certain webserver?'

No, all possible namespaces is embedded in the syntax ([A-Z][0-9]*:), and the zones are domains.

--Peter Schmitt 15:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Approvals on Recent Changes?

We have "approvals in process" appearing several places. Since I see that you've been updating CZ: approval announcements, do you know what updates the list on Recent Changes? Is it a job queue issue? Howard C. Berkowitz 19:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

When the metadata is added to nominate for approval, this should add a category to the article. This updates the list on Recent Changes. Sometimes there is a job queue issue which delays the category being added, however performing a null edit on the article (add a space to the end) should force an update. --Chris Key 20:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In a certain sense, the list is indeed updated: It now points to the /Draft versions, no longer to the page. I would think that we can wait and see how long it takes for the items to disappear. (It has already faster, I suppose.) --Peter Schmitt 22:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

World of Warcraft

Approved! Congratulations on another one. A good example of reasoned collaboration and compromise. Thanks D. Matt Innis 12:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Three active math editors...

...seem to be available now, since Harald Helfgott is here again. Boris Tsirelson 15:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be fine if it lasts ... --Peter Schmitt 23:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've written a number of things — at least RSA, Diffie-Hellman & discrete logarithm — that could use a look from a math editor. Sandy Harris 02:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As for me (far not an expert), these look quite professional; I have nothing to improve. Only a naive question: are some of the involved hard problems known to be NP-complete, or not? Boris Tsirelson 09:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Jet Set Willy ready for approval

If you have time at some point would you mind checking over Jet Set Willy? I believe it is ready for nomination. --Chris Key 17:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll have look. --Peter Schmitt 23:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please Archive My Talk Page

Please archive my talk page. I attempted to do so and it did not work. You were referred to as the talk page archiver, I guess, so I sure would appreciate the archiving. Many thanks in advance!

Mary Ash 23:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Mary Ash

Thanks!

Mary Ash 23:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Mary Ash

biography is present and accounted for. Told where I was born and what I am currently doing at Citizendium.

Mary Ash 23:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)Mary Ash

Could you please archive my talk page. I tried to figure it out...thanks! Mary Ash 02:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Perhaps CZ:Talk Pages#Archive is helpful. --Peter Schmitt 12:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks for the link and I'll give it a try next time.Mary Ash 18:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-degenerate ellipse

I googled it and got an overwhelming 'yes'. Ro Thorpe 14:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cryptanalysis

I think all link problems are now fixed. Sandy Harris 09:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Links in recipes

I wonder if maybe Chris Day didn't put them in originally so that the ingredients would show up in a different color? I just removed them from the Croque-monsieur recipe and now the text is black instead of reddish. I remember that we were *very* conscious of colors when we were designing the template. This is all very strange to me! Hayford Peirce 01:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Plane Geometry screwed up

Was that a ReApproval by any chance? Something is *really* messed up with the Approval process. It looks like Jitse did some work on this back in 2007 and there may be some strange templates or formatting floating around that I didn't take into account.

ReApprovals are *different* from Approvals -- if it was technically a ReApproval, then I might have messed up by doing things that I shouldn't have. Right now I can't straigten out what I've done.

There is NO TALK PAGE and no history of any discussions -- is this possible?

I won't do anything more until I hear from you. Hayford Peirce 17:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

When I click "Discussion" above it, I get quite detailed talk page. (Sorry for answering before Peter.) But where is the history, I do not know. ReApproval? Why? I did not see any sign of approval before. Boris Tsirelson 17:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, lemme look again -- *I* haven't been able to find it! Hayford Peirce 17:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now I find it at: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Plane_(geometry). But when I was doing the final steps of the Approval, the process took me to the DRAFT talk page, which didn't exist. Either I did something wrong, or this is an OLD file that has something different built into it. Okay, now that I've found the discussion page, let me see if I can finish this Approval. (It's probably a mistake that I made somewhere along the line.) THANKS, BORIS! Hayford Peirce 17:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I know whats wrong.

When you did the move, you moved Plane (geometry) to Plane (geometry)/draft. You should have moved it to Plane (geometry)/Draft. Note the capitalization of Draft. The version with the history, and the talk page, are at Plane (geometry)/draft. Delete Plane (geometry)/Draft and move Plane (geometry)/draft (and it's talk page) to the correct location. Also change the redirect on Talk:Plane (geometry) so that it links to the correctly capitalized version. --Chris Key 17:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Chris was faster :)

You first moved the page to Plane (geometry)/draft instead of Plane (geometry)/Draft -- the Draft subpage has a uppercase D. --Peter Schmitt 17:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I am the least expert in the technique here! But, being an old programmer, and being afraid of loss of information, I did urgently on my computer a copy of the article, and of its history found on testwiki! Not up today, of course, but from 2007 on. There we see that is was not approved in any way. Boris Tsirelson 18:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, THAT explains it! I was truly baffled! And was just writing a long cry for help on the tech pages of the Forum! I'll try to fix things up right now. Thanks!

The redirect seems to be showing a Capital D -- but I saved it again anyway. Is there some OTHER redirect that needs to be fixed? If so, please give me the exact link. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 18:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I used speedydelete to mark two redirects. --Peter Schmitt 18:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused! Do you want me to delete them or to rename them? Hayford Peirce 18:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like when you re-moved the /draft page to /Draft it automatically renamed the redirect. Its all fixed now :) --Chris Key 18:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Then that was the "Update any redirects" feature - box checked. But, Hayford, there remains the Plane (geometry)/draft redirect. (You accidently removed the pink template with the green template instead of deleting the page.) --Peter Schmitt 19:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Peter, thanks for picking up those typos in Petroleum naphtha. Milton Beychok 20:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again ... this time for picking up those two broken links. I have now replaced them with working links. I think that, in future, I will hire you to proofread some articles. What is your hourly fee? (Keep in mind that I am now retired and living off of savings). Milton Beychok 21:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)