Talk:Cryptography/Draft: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Hayford Peirce (→APPROVED Version 1.0: put in Link to version, I hope) |
imported>Pat Palmer (→APPROVED Version 1.0: question about opening it back up) |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
<div class="usermessage plainlinks">Discussion for [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Cryptography&oldid=100675426 Version 1.0] stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break. </div> | <div class="usermessage plainlinks">Discussion for [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Cryptography&oldid=100675426 Version 1.0] stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break. </div> | ||
: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?[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] | |||
Revision as of 00:07, 4 June 2013
Updated
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)
Date?
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)
Approval plans
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