User talk:Peter Schmitt
The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.
Where Peter lives it is approximately: 11:58
| < | 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)
- This has to be decided by the EC (see EC:2012-005). --Peter Schmitt 01:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Randomized controlled trial
How do we finish the approval of Randomized controlled trial? Also, how do we make the approval process more intuitive? Thanks - Robert Badgett 04:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
Travelling
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?
Peter, regarding:
Block cipher/Draft
One-time pad
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)