User talk:Peter Schmitt/Archive 2
The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.
Where Peter lives it is approximately: 22:01
| < | 2009(May19-Dec31) / 2010(Jan01-Aug28) / Sep 2010--2011 |
|---|
Charter: Draft // C1 C2 C3 C4 // my comments on current draft / my draft / my NEW draft
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)