User talk:Peter Schmitt/Archive 3

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: 16:45

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

You've won the lottery for an invitation !!!

Peter, you just won the opportunity to take a look at the new Volatility (chemistry) article and apply your proof reading skills as well as your skill at writing comments on the article's Talk page. It also gives you the opportunity to tear yourself away from the forums. Enjoy !!! Milton Beychok 16:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It is only a matter of style, but for my taste the "For more information see" is overdone: The same terms are linked just below them, and they are also listed as "Related articles. --Peter Schmitt 22:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter, for all the items you picked up ... I knew i could count on you. Milton Beychok 00:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

My bio

Peter as always I have great respect for you and your contributions. I hope this friendly discussion won't tarnish that. Here's what I posted to D. Matt Innis' talk page: The correct procedure would have been notifying a Constable of a potential infraction. It is the job of the Constable to take care of such matters. If every Citizen is allowed to "police" or correct other user pages mayhem could ensue. This is not the only time David Finn is offered to "correct" me and I have politely responded to his "corrections". In actuality, I probably have a bit more CZ membership time than he does, but I do not go around offering "help" unless asked. I posted this to Peter's page. Thanks!Mary Ash 14:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

CZ Authors

Anthony, by accident I noticed that you changed your "CZ Authors" category entry. You are now listed under "A" in the alphabetical list. --Peter Schmitt 23:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Peter, I didn't 'change' the entry, I tried adding it, to see if I would show up in both the "A" and "S" alphabetical list. Didn't work. Fixed now.

Had thought about Aleta's question re easy way to find someone's user page when, say, she only remembered the first name. But experiment didn't work. Thanks for alerting me. Anthony.Sebastian 23:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You've been Nominated!

Someone has nominated you for a position in the new Citizendium. They have noticed you're dedication to the project and like what they see. To be listed on the ballot for the position, it is necessary that you accept the nomination on the [[CZ:Nomination page|Nomination page]. Just place accept next to your name along with the four tildes. The nomination period will close at midnight October 7 (UTC). Article 54 of the new charter details the requirements:

Article 54

• In conjunction with the Declaration of the Editor-in-Chief regarding the effectivity of this Charter, there shall be a call for nominations for the following offices: Managament Council (five seats), Editorial Council (seven seats), Managing Editor (one), Ombudsman (one). This shall be the effective date of the Charter.
• Any Citizen may nominate candidates for these positions.
• Nominations shall be collected and collated by the Chief Constable.
• Nominations shall be accepted no more than fourteen days after the effective date of the charter; the ballot shall be available starting on the twentieth day after the effective date of the charter; the election shall be completed no more than twenty-eight days after the effective date of the charter; all elected officials shall begin their term of office on the thirtieth day after the effective date of the charter.
• Only candidates who accept their nomination shall be eligible to appear on the ballot. Nominated candidates can accept nominations for no more than two official functions. Accepting a nomination serves as a declaration of commitment, in the case of being elected, to fulfill this function until the limit of the term.
• All positions shall be elected by a simple majority of the voting citizenry. In the case of a tie, an immediate run-off election shall be held.
• In the event that a candidate has been elected for two functions, the candidate shall declare which one he or she accepts within three days of announcement of the election results. In the event that such a declaration has not been made during this period, the candidate shall be considered elected for the position for which the nomination was accepted first. The same procedure applies to a reserve member that becomes elected by a seat being vacated this way.

If you would like to make a statement to help voters, click the "Statement" link to the right of your name.

Thanks again for the commitment you're making to assure that Citizendium becomes the premier quality online source we all have envisioned.

D. Matt Innis 13:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I may not be available till Sunday, Oct. 10

--Peter Schmitt 13:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Order

Peter, did you see Order (relation)? Do you like it? Here are some possible scenarios.

(0) Do nothing.

(1) One of us approves it, the other helps.

(2) One of us splits it (into "order" and "lattice"?), the other approves "order".

For now I am familiar with everything before "Dilworth's theorem". In order to approve it all, I have to take some books and learn. Also, lattices may be treated as partially ordered sets, but alternatively they may be treated as algebraic structures (with given operations, not relations). Boris Tsirelson 16:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer splitting for two reasons:

(a) I think it is didactically better to avoid putting too many material in one article,

(b) As you say, lattices are algebraic structures, orders are relations. They are related and induce each other, but they are different concepts.

Moreover, I think that "order relation" is a better title for the first part of the article which concentrates on introducing mathematical terminology and concepts. An article on "order" could be a non-technical introduction (or should be added to "order relation").

As for Dilworth's theorem: It is rather isolated in the current article. It could get its own page, or be included in some page on the structure of ordered sets. (Dilworth's theorem is equivalent to the marriage theorem on bipartite graphs, and the flow-cut(?) theorem on networks.)

--Peter Schmitt 22:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. So, who is the splitter and who is the approver? Boris Tsirelson 06:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

We should care about "lattice", it has other meanings. Boris Tsirelson 07:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not mind to perform the split. But if you prefer to do it I do not mind, either.

Yes, "lattice (algebraic structure)" or "lattice (algebra)"

--Peter Schmitt 12:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice; just do the split.

"lattice (algebra)"? Is it "our" lattice, or a discrete subgroup..? Boris Tsirelson 12:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Mmmh, you are right, the second version would still be ambiguous. I only thought of "lattice (number theory) or/and "lattice (geometry)". But the first one is better, anyway. --Peter Schmitt 12:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Still a problem: I am not sure that Lattice (discrete subgroup) belongs to number theory or geometry rather than algebra. WP suggests "lattice (order)" and "lattice (group)"; not very satisfactory, but is there something better, or not? They both can be treated as algebraic, in one sense or another. Boris Tsirelson 15:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics (Math. Soc. Japan), I see in the subject index:

Lattice (=lattice ordered set)

Lattice (of a Lie group)

Lattice (in Rⁿ).

Boris Tsirelson 16:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you request a page deletion?

I left this message on the roast turkey talk page:

No, Peter I did not know that an author could request a page deletion. How do you request a page be deleted? I plan no more work on this article as it does not meet Citizendium standards. The one thing I learned in life, so far, is to know when to cut your losses. I am moving onto to other articles to write. Again, how do you request a page deletion? I searched Citizendium and could find nothing to enlighten me on this subject. Thanks!Mary Ash 14:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Crypto/math articles

A while back I asked for comment from math editors User_talk:Peter_Schmitt/Archive_2#Three_active_math_editors... on some crypto articles. The only reply I got was a favorable one from Boris.

Are any of those — discrete logarithm, Diffie-Hellman or RSA algorithm — approvable? If not, what do they need? Sandy Harris

Thank you for asking, Sandy. But unfortunately I had not enough time (and energy) to look at these while all these policy discussions took place. I have to ask for patience, I am sorry. --Peter Schmitt 08:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Sandy Harris 09:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The approval

Peter, you are silent on Talk:Schröder-Bernstein theorem#Toward approval, why? What should I do: wait more? approve the old version? Boris Tsirelson 06:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Boris. I didn't have enough time during the last few days. And that time was taken by the forum discussions (and a few disputes I got involved into). Of course, you may approve the "old" version, or you may wait for some more edits on the history. I would not take the current, intermediate version. And I think that it will not hurt to wait a few days. --Peter Schmitt 08:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I am waiting. (Hope, not for long.) Boris Tsirelson 09:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)\

Really I wonder why do you call the current version "intermediate". As for me it is quite good, and needs only a slight tweaking. But, it seems, your idea of a history section is more demanding; really? Boris Tsirelson 16:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If the article is under development then it is not developed and therefore cannot be under approval. Boris Tsirelson 18:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I call it intermediate because I used the history sectiot to save some information. As you pointed out, there are still some questions open. --Peter Schmitt 00:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I see: it is under development again. And I am afraid that its approval will need a more knowledgeable editor than me; I do not know the history, and the sources are hardly available to me. Boris Tsirelson 07:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Boris, if you want, you may approve the "old" version without the history in it (as was your initial intention). The history section will still be available in the draft. I always wanted to add such a section, but began earlier than I had planned because of the questions raised on the talk page. Personally, I think that a history section is nice to have, but we also can do without it. --Peter Schmitt 10:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I may, but I am in doubt; indeed, then your "history" section (to appear...) will be invisible for usual visitors (till the next approval). Thus I prefer to ask your opinion: do you want it to happen or not? Boris Tsirelson 11:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem to prefer it with the history, I have tried to finish the section as good as can at the moment. If you like it then it could be approved now, I assume. --Peter Schmitt 13:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes! I prefer it, I like it, and I am glad to approve it now. Boris Tsirelson 14:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Peter for all the work you do

Thanks Peter for all the work you do. The turkey article is shaping up real nice. Thanks again!Mary Ash 00:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't contributed to the turkey article. But there remains still a lot to do -- shaping it up, I mean -- for you :-) --Peter Schmitt 00:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry the article was such a turkey :-) Thanks again and best, Mary Ash 00:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Roast turkey

Do you want me to merge the histories of the subpages of Roast turkey (American) into the subpages of Roast turkey, too?

To a different degree. (I know it is cumbersome to do.): Certainly the Recipes subpage, probably Related Articles and Definition (and main page), not needed for Bibliography and External Links. I tried to express with the comments added to the templates. --Peter Schmitt 09:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've merged all the Roast turkey (American), Related Articles, Definition, and Recipes to Roast turkey. Please make sure I didn't miss anything! D. Matt Innis 16:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It is ok, I think. Do you want me to put templates on the redirects, or will delete them directly? --Peter Schmitt 10:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Going cold turkey

Hi, Peter, could you take a look at: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Roast_turkey#What_do_we_do_now_with_the_turkey_recipes.3F__Asking_for_opinions_and_thoughts.... and offer your considered opinion when you have a moment? Many thanks! Hayford Peirce 22:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Retirement

Wasn't all that it is cracked up to be! Besides, they doubled my pay and it's only one weekend a month! D. Matt Innis 02:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Would appreciate your comments on Acid rain

Peter, I just finished almost a complete re-write of Acid rain, including a new graphic that I drew. I would appreciate it if you look it over and let me know (on the article's Talk page) if you think it is too long, too short or whatever. I know it is somewhat U.S. centric, but I just could not find any good sources for information about acid rain in other parts of the world. However, I am fairly sure that the formation and effects of acid rain in other countries would be pretty much the same as in the U.S. Milton Beychok 20:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your edit to Acid rain

Thanks, Peter. Sorry that I did not thank you sooner but I have been very, very busy with starting our donation drive. We already have $372 in donations and I'm sure we will get what we need soon ... I hope! Milton Beychok 05:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

About my thanking you

Peter, I know that I don't "need" to thank you each time you edit an article I am involved with ... but that is just a habit I try to cultivate. Its just a way to acknowledge your edit. I hope that does not bother you. Regards, Milton Beychok 18:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Offline till 27 Nov

--Peter Schmitt 00:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Peter could you please archive my talk page

Peter when you return could you please archive my talk page. I appreciate your kindness in doing so. Thankss!Mary Ash 06:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

World of Warcraft reapproval

A new World of Warcraft expansion is being released on the 7th December and on that day our currently approved article will become out of date. I have updated the draft and nominated it for approval, however I need the support of two more Editors. As one of the Editors involved in the original approval, I was hoping you would support this update. As you can see, the changes to the article are minimal. Thanks --Chris Key 16:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Chris, shouldn't the update wait until the new version is known and can be included? If the answer is "no": Why do you think that three editors are needed? I was not involved in the update. --Peter Schmitt 18:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to wait, as the expansion has been in beta testing for several months and all the information from that beta-test is very accessible. You're right, you can approve it as an individual Editor --Chris Key 05:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Second

Sorry, I don't get that. --Daniel Mietchen 16:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

See CZ:Proposals/Disambiguation mechanics#Implementation details. I think this is an example for the use of a "base term". (I do not insist.) --Peter Schmitt 17:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This proposal never went through the whole proposal process and was thus never implemented. I am open to try to get it (or a variant thereof) past the EC, but as long as {{mainredir}} does not exist, I do not see a reason to add it anywhere. I don't mind where the redirect is pointing - both physics and disambiguation would be fine with me. --Daniel Mietchen 18:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As a new Constable I have been put on "speedydelete" duty. But before I "speedydelete" the old subpages for "Second" can you please confirm that this question is settled -- that the article should be at "Second (physics)" where it is now -- and that I should delete these subpages? I wanted to be sure before taking the action. Thanks. Bruce M. Tindall 18:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking: We only discussed where the redirect on the main page should point. This does not concern the redirects on the subpages to be deleted. They are not needed. But I forgot to remove the template on the main page when the talk page became used. --Peter Schmitt 19:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Time

Hey Peter,

How did you pick that particular time? It seems 12 hours off of my EST. I used the ~~~~~ D. Matt Innis 19:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The text says

"D. Matt Innis has nominated the version dated 14:32, 5 December 2010"

and the version to which it points has this date. I consider the instruction to use five tildes as a bug: This gives the time when you nominate the article, never the date/time of the version. I copy it from the history page.

Usually this does not matter much because normally the top version will be approved. But in this case? --Peter Schmitt 20:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I agree that the version date would be better to have in that spot, but I think Chris Day designed it to have the current time. It could use a good rethink ;-) D. Matt Innis 20:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks

See my comments at Talk:WikiLeaks#An_Editorial_Council_member_will_help_out Sandy Harris 13:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I am about done editing the draft at User:Sandy_Harris/WikiLeaks. Please have a look. Sandy Harris 10:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Sandy. While it may not be necessary, I am waiting until the EC proposal is (formally) passed. --Peter Schmitt 11:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of sources

Hi Peter:

I am not familiar with CZ customs, so I thought I'd ask you about sources. You've brought up two points. First, that items of fact that are widely known do not need sourcing. Second, that sources should be those commonly used.

Perhaps you could clarify whether those are CZ policies, or more accurately your preferences?

In considering these points, here are two observations:

Of course, items of fact may not be known to every reader, and a source often provides a wider context and various implications that the reader could find useful. In such a case, providing a source, particularly one available on-line via Google or Amazon is surely a service to the reader.

And also, authoritative sources do not necessarily provide the most lucid description of a topic, nor the most current, and often aren't easy to find unless you've accumulated a personal library. Particularly when a lucid discussion is available on-line, it seems a service to the reader to provide a readily accessible link to a lucid discussion even if it is not the definitive work on the subject.

I wonder a bit whether your view of these matters is more that of a writer of a journal paper, where the purpose of sources is to support a statement and avoid rehash of arguments available elsewhere, rather than that of a writer trying to be helpful to a non-technical reader even if that requires hand-holding? John R. Brews 05:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Peter, I quite agree with John that sources are useful even if the facts are widely known to those who are well acquainted with the subject being written about. There will be readers to whom the items of fact are not widely known.

I also agree with John that sometimes the most authoritative sources are not easily available and an on-line lesser authoritative article is easily accessible ... in which case, it can be useful to reference the on-line article.

In my opinion, the more we help the non-knowledgeable reader with references, the better. About the only references that I dislike are those that act like a dictionary ... that is, they explain the meaning of some common words available in most dictionaries. We are building an encyclopedia ... not a dictionary. Milton Beychok 06:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

See also CZ_Talk:Article_Mechanics#Citation_relevance. Sandy Harris 07:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me say first that this is to a great deal a matter of style (and taste). Moreover, conventions vary from field to field. While (modern) mathematicians very rarely use footnotes, philosophers and historians seem to like them.

Another important aspect to consider is, of course, the potential reader: What may help him, what may distract him?

When I came to CZ I found this on citations (Sandy referenced the accompanying talk page), found it sound and liked it. Eventually (but not urgently) the EC will have to review this, of course.

Specifically, on the current issue:

• The "Levi-Civita symbol" is a term used in differential geometry (only, I think). This is not a claim that needs to be proven (even though less usual than "Levi-Civita tensor"), therefore it does not need a reference on the page. The reader has no reason to doubt the definition and look if it is reproduced "neutrally".
• Of course, we should recommend "further reading" (but only if we can recommend it! -- not all possible references, only carefully selected ones). The user should be able to trust that it is worth the effort to follow the recommendation (if he is interested to know more). But such recommendations belong into the Bibliography, not into references. (However, I doubt that a definition like this needs further reading, while further reading is suitable for the Levi-Civita tensor.)
• I would like to include (in the text, not in a reference) a remark on where the symbol was first introduced (Levi-Civita?), and who first called it "Levi-Civita symbol". This would be historical information. The (original) sources would belong into the Bibliography, as well as the paper where this information was found (claimed).

As for the footnote on the sign of permutations: Either leave it unexplained, or explain it (briefly) in the text. (I agree with the cited guidelines.)

--Peter Schmitt 01:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Peter: Thanks for the link to References, which presents the present position of CZ. Personally, as you may judge, I find this treatment too brief and too narrow in numerous respects. Needless to say, a more complete CZ guideline would require community discussion.

However, I do hope that you can understand that the view taken by the CZ policy, that references "are not needed for information that is common knowledge among experts", falls short of saying that references for purposes of elucidation should be avoided. Also, the CZ policy suggestion that "an informational note may be included as a reference in order to make important clarifications of the text" could be interpreted to allow citation in footnotes of sources that serve an explanatory function.

In any event, assisting the reader seems to me a paramount goal, and the CZ policy should not be capable of interpretation in ways that interfere with that objective; perhaps the present formulation of policy is ripe for revision. Would you agree? John R. Brews 04:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Peter: Reading this over, I think I'm sounding too contentious here. As you have said above "Another important aspect to consider is, of course, the potential reader: What may help him, what may distract him? "

The answer, according to some, is to avoid footnotes as much as possible. I remember seeing a discussion on Charlie Rose with "Jimbo" Wales in which Charlie expressed his own view that he'd prefer to have articles with no footnotes, just the facts. Perhaps that is your view too, eh Peter?

So the question is whether we need a rigid set of policies to limit footnotes, or just some guidelines, or leave it to each editor as a matter of taste? John R. Brews 14:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me looking in on this interesting exchange. It is clear that there are very different preferences among the various authors and editors here on Citizendium. Some (like Anthony Sebastian) like very extensive footnotes, others (like Robert Badgett) like very close referencing but no text in footnotes, others prefer minimal referencing. Personally I prefer light referencing - mainly only things that I think should be checked because they might be controversial, and use the bibliography for deep sources. But it has to be a personal judgement call, bearing in mind your chosen audience, and what works best for you. I also like footnotes a lot, but not everyone does.Gareth Leng 16:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I often include footnotes (written text) amongst my list of <ref></ref> references when I feel that a word or phrase in the article needs a bit of explanation and there is no other article that I can wiki link to for that explanation. I don't think we should adopt any rigid set of policies regarding references and/or footnotes. Milton Beychok 17:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose, my position is similar to that of Gareth (if I understand him correctly).

Well, I prefer to avoid footnotes where a direct link between a word (or sentence) and the accompanying remark is not needed.

Thus, for instance, the precise source for a quote would deserve a footnote (if not given in the text). But I might consider citing it as (Author, page ...) only, leaving the bibliographical data for the Bibliography (in particular, if this book is cited several times!).

As for explaining footnotes: In many cases, I think, they are better merged with the text.

I'll comment on the particular cases on Talk:Levi-Civita symbol. --Peter Schmitt 19:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

UFO references are missing

Peter when you moved the UFO history some of the references went missing. They can not be found on the catalog page. Since the references are integral for sourcing the facts could you please add them. I would do this but I don't know how. Thanks!Mary Ash 23:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiLeaks

See User_talk:Sandy_Harris/WikiLeaks#I_think_I.27m_done. Sandy Harris 10:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Holmes, just for fun

Hi Peter - little question for ya Aleta Curry 23:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)