User talk:Matt Crypto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License

Archives
March 2004 to July 2004 July 2004 to November 2004 November 2004 to March 2005 March 2005 to October 2005 October 2005 to December 2005 January 2006 to October 2006

1 Important - please ban User:Potters House for insertion of completely fabricated material
2 Of Lefties and Loyalties
3 My fault
4 RFCU
5 I think there's a mistake on the "reasoning ..." part of the Bombe page
6 Centauri reincarnated as 125.253.33.180
7 we don't do trivia
8 Redman
9 I really don't appreciate your insinuations...
10 Johnski sock accounts
11 Your input is requested
12 Latest FairHair stuff
13 Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess
14 thank you for protecting 'singing bowl'
15 Singing bowl protection
16 LibTom Project/Tom St Denis
17 Regarding revert for Data Encryption Standard
18 Reply
19 Stored-programme computer
20 Christianity Explored
21 Help Prevent Article Deletion: Religious Perspectives on Dinosaurs
22 Christian Metal Project
23 Hi
24 stub-specify template
25 MP3\Ogg
26 Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
27 Swahili Wikipedia
28 The Times
29 Fergie (singer)
30 Jake Gyllenhaal
31 Times obit question on ref desk.
32 Re:
33 Image copyright problem with Image:STU-III.png
34 Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
35 Greetings and Source
36 Ronald Knox
37 Humor
38 Images
39 Doctoring
40 Soggy BISCUIT!
41 Salamu kutoka sw:wikipedia
42 Image:DES-key-schedule.png incorrect
43 My alleged misunderstanding of WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT
44 Cyrillic Projector
45 Intellipedia article edits
46 User:MikeURL
47 Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
48 Wikipedia:Bots/Status
49 Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
50 Get in touch?
51 Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.
52 Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.
53 Men in skirts
54 Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.
55 Talk:Costco
56 James Allason
57 Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.
58 Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.
59 Hey dude.
60 FAR of Humpback Whale

[edit] Important - please ban User:Potters House for insertion of completely fabricated material

I will copy and paste my comment from Talk:Potters House:

In response to the criticism leveled by Enroth and Charisma magazine, User:Potters house has inserted a number of quotes by Wayman Mitchell that respond to this criticism.

The problem is simple - the quotes were completely fabricated.

The book "In Pursuit of Destiny" could not be found through any internet search of either its title or its ISBN number. Click here for the Google search of "In Pursuit of Destiny" + wayman and you will discover that the internet knows nothing of this book except for Wikipedia and associated websites. If you look on the google for the ISBN number 0-9699777-1-9 you get even less results, and only those from Wikipedia. A look through various book respositories from the Wikipedia ISBN searching meta page can be found here, sufficed to say that the book is unknown to internet book sellers and even the library of congress.

Secondly, and most stupidly, the date for the book's publication was given as 1996. Yet we are led to believe that this very book contains a quote in reference to a Charisma news report that occurred in 2002.

I will therefore be calling upon Administrators and those in power to ban User:Potters House as soon as possible. --One Salient Oversight 04:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

--One Salient Oversight 04:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey there Matt, if you want I can SEND you a scanned copy of the books first few pages. This person has an obvious bias against my inclusion of the quotes. Cheers. Potters house 06:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have put them in the talk at the Potters House Article. Cheers! Potters house 13:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't people usually comment at the bottom of a talk page, I can't understand why he did it here? Potters house 13:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Of Lefties and Loyalties

hey.. not sure where your loyalties lie, but I came across a lady who was recently in voting to become a wikipedia admin - i'm not sure what her wikipedia id is, but her name is Thelca or Telca or something like that. She is of the Order of the Left Handed Path - and was IN voting about 10 days ago. (October 20th) If you have some spare time, check it out. There's enough official sided stuff without left handed help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 158.80.8.2 (talk • contribs). (moved by Prometheus^-X303- 20:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC))

(Thanks Prometheus). Sorry, I'm not sure what you're talking about here. — Matt Crypto 21:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My fault

I was wrong to revert. I saw a word that got added that looked like "talia", a name this vandal keeps adding. I rushed too much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saros136 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, keep up the good work (and don't forget to sign your talk page posts with the old four squiggly things ~~~~ — Matt Crypto 02:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFCU

Sorry about the cross-posting on the CheckUser. Do you think I should remove it as "no longer needed", or leave it to see if any interesting data comes of it? If it were up to me, I'd say leave it, but I see it as your call at this point. --Elonka 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I don't see why not -- it may well be that further evidence can be provided by it. I'm comfortable with the current grounds for a block, but a CheckUser can't hurt. — Matt Crypto 23:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Elonka 23:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think there's a mistake on the "reasoning ..." part of the Bombe page

Hi. I see you put a ton of stuff up on the Bombe page, which I've just been reading. It's great, but I think there's a small mistake that makes the reasoning flawed. In "Reasoning about steckered values" it says "we can also observe that T encrypts to W at position 2", but in fact T encrypts to S at position 2. I couldn't work this out, so (sadly) I trawled through the old edits to find you had originally had the cipher text start WW but changed it (on 11/11/04) to WS. You had updated a reference earlier in the article, but not the equations lower down.

Either I have interpreted it wrong, or nobody has spotted it for two years. I would change it so that it makes sense, but I thought you might want to comment since you did all the hard work in the first place!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DI Ramekin (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look... — Matt Crypto 15:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. I've had a stab at fixing it. I'm not quite sure why I made this mistake; it may be that I changed the example half-way through, and was working from an old example. I don't like the other explanation, which is maybe I'm just stupid ;-) — Matt Crypto 15:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd go with the first explanation if I were you! Glad to have helped. DI Ramekin 16:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Centauri reincarnated as 125.253.33.180

Can you block this IP address? and this one too:125.253.35.155 Should Centauri be allowed to edit using IP addresses while he is blocked? He wrote: "I'll be editing anonymously until the block on me is reversed, so I won't be keeping as close an eye on things as before. --125.253.33.180 02:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC) (Centauri)" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert" I've also asked Taxman the same question, but don't know if he is around at this hour. Harvardy 03:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is this sock of the troll Wik editing anything? --125.253.33.65 03:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Matt. While Centauri is clearly editing from the above anons despite the current block, the Harvardy edits are vandalizing Centauri's former articles of focus, and Harvardy is a listed Wik sock. I'm not going to defend Centauri's editing while blocked, but something terminal should be done about Harvardy as well. Georgewilliamherbert 20:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Already been done, it seems: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Harvardy — Matt Crypto 20:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There's another one: 80.86.82.170 (talk • contribs • count). Can you take a look at them and block if appropriate? They've been blocked repeatedly recently and are back vandalizing stuff. Georgewilliamherbert 22:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, you don't really need to revert anything Centauri leaves anonymously on my talk page. I know it's within policy, but he's not hurting anything doing that. I asked him to just communicate via his talk page but his coming to mine is harmless. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 22:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] we don't do trivia

i am not particulary fond of trivia, but is that a general policy or that. i actually often amuse myself with removing things like:

Klaus Barbie is given a rare comedic reference in the 2001 movie "Rat Race," where the family of John Lovitz's character makes a stop along a cross-country road trip to visit the "Barbie Museum," which Lovitz's daughter mistakenly assumes to be a roadside attraction dedicated to her favorite doll. Instead, the museum turns out to be a creepy shrine to the Nazi dictator - and Lovitz's family beats a hasty retreat in what they later discover to be Adolf Hitler's car.

if it is general policy, even better, can you tell me where i find this, makes it easier for me to argue... trueblood 19:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, Barbie is an unfortunate name indeed. There's the Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections guideline and WP:TRIVIA essay. I think people mostly agree that genuine trivia shouldn't be included, but often it turns out that what people put in sections labelled "Trivia" is actually non-trivial, and could be usefully incorporated somewhere else in the article. Renaming to something like "Miscellaneous facts", pruning genuine trivia and integrating other facts into the rest of the article seems to be a reasonable strategy. — Matt Crypto 21:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redman

OK, I found one under a usable license - [1] - but it stinks. Do you think it's worth keeping? Check the link at Matt Redman - I'm inclined to say no, so I've gone with db-userreq. If you think it's better than nothing, feel free to remove it. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers, good find. I actually think any illustration is better than none (hence my horrible grainy picture from '96). I've uploaded to Commons and added it to the article. — Matt Crypto 12:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I really don't appreciate your insinuations...

You really don't know anything about the person who made these designs. I do. Don't insult me with offensive accusations and stop interfering with me.

[edit] Johnski sock accounts

Can you please block Harvardy and FairHair. It's obvious that they're both Johnski socks being used to disrupt Wikipedia by co-ordinating vandalism of Empire of Atlantium and my user page. Thanks. --Gene_poole 03:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest FairHair stuff

Might want to take a look at his contributions and my vandalism warnings on his talk page. He's throwing more Gene sock claims around in edit summaries and vandalized several Gene Poole related/edited pages. Georgewilliamherbert 21:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Still at it last night. He's under 3RR, but this is disruptive at best. Georgewilliamherbert 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear Matt—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 15:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thank you for protecting 'singing bowl'

Thank you for stopping the crazy editing war over the post for 'singing bowl.' This person - b9hummingbird whatever - has been continuously replacing the long standing text with his own version which is not only poorly written but also full of conjectural theories and outright false facts. The version you chose to protect was composed by 3 of the world's leading experts on the subject and has been up for several months. Thanks for protecting it - is there any way to stop b9 hummingbird from continuing his assault on rationality? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.2.161.89 (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Singing bowl protection

I thank you for locking 'singing bowl' and acknowledge the page locked is not an endorsement of the version therein. Something needed to happen to progress this stonewall. What does this undisclosed editor think the feeling of wellbeing they experience when resonating the singing bowl is? What is the mechanism that initiates this state? Answers to these questions do have a place within this article. It is a form of meditative trance. Regardless, I have cited references and requested dialogue with this editor. The other editor has not endeavoured to enter into dialogue and has provided no references to support their assertions and consistency refuses to create a login for probity. The other editor also resorts to offensive assertions and mud-slinging in an effort to slander me and the content which is disrespectful and inappropriate. They are railroading and I assert that they are endeavouring to commercially profit from perpetuating ignorance. I would assert that a regular user of singing bowls would be more harmonious and inclusive in their relationships and would appreciate the value of difference and the importance of different voices in scholarship. At minimum, I would like a clear distinction between 'new singing bowls' and 'traditional' ones and the inclusion of the sentence on fountain bowls. The references cited should be included as they are reputable and no others have as yet been entered. Let the other editor provide additional references that support their claims or counter what has been stated. This difference adds to the interest of the article and is demonstrably inclusive of different perspectives which is true to the voice of neutrality that is of the guiding ethos of Wikipedia. The editor should be encouraged to create an account so true dialogue can be entertained. I have clearly stated that I am willing to work together to find a mutually agreeable resolution. May I ask how this situation is now to be progressed? B9 hummingbird hovering 03:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LibTom Project/Tom St Denis

Hi, should i assume LibTom Project dead, and add some more content to Tom St Denis? ... all this process is very new/strange to me. Alejandro Mery 19:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the former will be deleted and the latter kept, unless much changes between now and the end of the debate. You're quite welcome to try and improve the article before then, of course. Process is, um, horrible and complex, really, but I suppose it's better than anarchy ;-) — Matt Crypto 19:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I put some deets on my talk page. Since I guess they want to keep the article (flattering...) we should at least make it interesting. I won't write the article myself (vanity and NPOV issues) but I'll contribute info to the talk page as/when/if the article is re-written. As I said to Alejandro in a private email, this article would probably be more interesting after part 1 of my third book is out (end of 2007). At least then, there would be a nice verbose written record of what the hell the "LibTom Projects" are and the person/politics behind it. :-) -- Tom

[edit] Regarding revert for Data Encryption Standard

Hey Matt, I just wanted to contact you about your revert to my edit on the Data Encryption Standard article. It read:

"Monetary losses as a result of DES's relative insecurity do occur, though this trend is expected to fade as more businesses turn to other, more secure encryption algorithms. A prevalent, though illegal, example of this are websites specializing in Internet pornography--computer hackers have been known to collect databases of usernames and their encrypted password counterparts (which are almost universally encrypted in DES) in order to decrypt them and gain access to the website. Many such sites charge a monthly fee for access, meaning that the companies lose a significant amount of profit, especially if the decrypted accounts are distributed over the Internet."

I'm not sure how I'd find a source for something that is obviously illegal and very underground. Also, you stated that "it could well be that DES itself wasn't broken, but rather the passwords, which had been hashed using a DES derivative, were guessed." I'm not really sure what you mean by that. A brute force attack would be used (well, more often than not a dictionary-based attack), which is a valid form of decryption, no? If you find out what the passwords are, aren't you breaking the decryption? You still need to have the right salt and everything, right? Also, what do you mean by DES derivative? Thanks; I just wanted to ask you about this. :) --pie4all88 09:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pie4all88, a few answers: first, if something isn't sourced, we can't use it in a Wikipedia article. We have to be quite strict on that one. Second, passwords are typically obscured by hashing them, not encryption, and one password hashing algorithm was based on DES, although it wasn't DES (see Crypt_(Unix)#Traditional_DES-based_scheme). This is why I speculate that your examples were referring to that, and not DES encryption; one of the weaknesses of not having a source is that I can't examine it to see ;-) Third, if you recover the passwords through a dictionary attack or other such method, that's not a weakness in the hash function; even a perfect hash function cannot stop you from recovering passwords if they can be guessed, so it's not a "break" of the algorithm. — Matt Crypto 09:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, ok, thanks, Matt. If you're looking for examples of what I'm talking about, here are a couple of usernames/passwords that I happened to stumble upon: mWariers:T7A4qWZ.hYcTM othmir:Cl48MQjZ8bSeI southern:30wzNExU2U4ng abbottrd:87LAOHFviOQuE wfield:65PrPWHfnuEro khoney:93V4AIPhWiiJY saintmon:87caxnFGS9tt6 alexhk05:36/4Jou7.24LM . As I understand it, the first two(?) characters represent the salt (with 4,096 combinations--maybe that should be added to the DES article?) that the hash uses (by the way, what's the difference between a key and a hash? I can't seem to understand it from the Wikipedia pages). And what exactly is the difference between a hash like this and a normal instance of DES being used? Sorry if this is kind of convoluted; it's 4:30 AM here and I'm tired. :) --pie4all88 10:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The difference between a cipher and a hash is that you can undo the cipher if (and only if) you know the key; whereas there is no way in general to undo the effect of a hash; it's "one-way". DES itself is a block cipher, designed for encryption and decryption of 64-bit blocks given a 56-bit key. However, you can also use any block cipher as a building block to make a hash function. There's many ways to do this, and one way is to use the method as described in Crypt_(Unix) (although that method actually modifies DES itself by fiddling with one of the permutations). — Matt Crypto 10:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I guess that makes sense. Hashes and ciphers are therefore, in theory at least, equally secure if the hash is based on the cipher, right? Thanks for all the help, Matt. --pie4all88 10:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could help. See also [[Hash functions based on block ciphers]. It's not necessarily the case that a hash based on a secure block cipher is secure. It depend on the specific construction used; some are weak. — Matt Crypto 11:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I didnt mean it to be helpfull, I was enforcing the policy. 1B6 14:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stored-programme computer

Are you quite sure of your spelling? I believe this is a UK publication: http://plus.maths.org/issue5/turing/ Which consistently uses the phrase "stored-programme computer". Are they wrong then? laddiebuck 21:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Not wrong, but "program" is acceptable UK English for computer programs; see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(spelling)#Different_spellings_.E2.80.93_different_meanings. — Matt Crypto 00:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! laddiebuck 23:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christianity Explored

I saw that you restarted this article, which has been deleted once before. I happened on it looking through the Christianity stubs. The article itself does not appear to assert notability for the course ... I am unclear why it is more notable than so many other "intro to Christianity" courses? Is it related to the Alpha course? I did not want to tag the article or put it to an AfD without raising the concerns with you first. Merry Christmas, Pastordavid 19:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Same to you, and thank you for dropping me a note first. I'm the third person to independently create an article on the topic, unaware that it had previously been VfD'd. I don't know about other "intro to Christianity" courses, but Christianity Explored seems to be fairly widely heard of in the UK, although Alpha is much more so. CE is modelled on Alpha. See also comments on Talk:Christianity Explored. — Matt Crypto 19:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help Prevent Article Deletion: Religious Perspectives on Dinosaurs

Hello, I'm leaving you this message because I notice you've made at least one edit to the Wikipedia article Religious perspectives on dinosaurs. The article has recently been nominated for deletion from Wikipedia, and there is considerable support for that position.

I'm hoping you'll help me support the continued existence of the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs article by registering a keep vote on the article's request for deletion page. The article contains some good information, and represents an unobtrusive way to present notable minority viewpoints about dinosaurs that cannot be elaborated on in the parent article. It shouldn't be deleted simply because it isn't "scientific."

Thanks! Killdevil 03:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, more heat than light in that area of Wikipedia. — Matt Crypto 19:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Metal Project

If you are interested in joining a potential Project Wiki Christian Metal project go here to sign up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Christian_Metal --E tac 07:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

How is everything going?Voce me conhece 13:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stub-specify template

Point taken. I have changed the wording of the template as follows:

I noticed you placed the {{stub}} tag on the article ARTICLE. In general, the {{stub}} tag has been depricated, in favor of subject-specific stub tags. While adding {{stub}} is helpful to other editors, it is generally more helpful to find the best specific stub tag(s) from the list at WP:STUBS. This saves other editors work in categorizing the page, and makes it easier for editors with experise in the subject to find pages that need work.

— Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, cheers! — Matt Crypto 23:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MP3\Ogg

Hi Matt. I saw your mail on [WikiEn-I] about MP3 files. I'm replying here because I still don't know the etiquette on that list, and I'm not sure if promoting something is allowed. If you would like to convert OGG to MP3, you could download Audacity. It is free and Open Source, and quite easy to use. Plus, it's got so many other bells and whistles that it's just plain fun to use. Prometheus^-X303- 18:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the pointer, I'll give it a go. — Matt Crypto 19:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 2	8 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review	Another newspaper columnist found to have plagiarized Wikipedia
Blogs track attempts to manipulate articles	Nutritional beef cooks PR editor
WikiWorld comic: "Facial Hair"	News and notes: Fundraiser continues, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swahili Wikipedia

Hi again Matt. Over on the Swahili Wikipedia, several users are requesting bot status. While there's no actual support, there isn't really any opposition either, and it's obviously needed (I can barely see Special:Recentchanges because the interwiki bots crowd so much of it!) and uncontroversial. You'll find two of the requests here and one here. Thanks. Picaroon 23:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Times

I have access to past issues of The Times through my university; send me the info on what you want to fastfission@gmail.com and I'll send you what I can. --Fastfission 01:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fergie (singer)

In order to be consistent, I have had to change a few "Fergies" on the Stacy Ferguson article to "Ferguson." Otherwise, the name keeps switching from "Ferguson" to "Fergie" and vice versa. I hope my recent edits are better than the one you had to revert. I've been trying to update the page for the last few days, and keeping the name consistent is one of those updates. See what you think now (assuming no one else has changed the names by the time you get to see it). Acalamari 19:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jake Gyllenhaal

The only reliable source available at the moment is a video of him. What do you want me to do, linked to a copyrighted Youtube clip? WP:IAR was MADE for instances such as this. Look at the link, it's hardly pushing gossip, is it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR doesn't mean "if you can't find a reliable source, use an unreliable one". The alternative is not to include the fact at all. Why not wait until it's published in a reliable source? — Matt Crypto 07:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Times obit question on ref desk.

Are you aware of the existence of Wikipedia:Newspapers and magazines request service? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer! — Matt Crypto 12:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Your opinion is noted. Rebecca 14:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:STU-III.png

Thank you for uploading Image:STU-III.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MECU≈talk 00:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 3	15 January 2007	About the Signpost

Special: 2006 in Review, Part II	New arbitrators interviewed
Cascading protection feature added	WikiWorld comic: "Apples and Oranges"
News and notes: Fundraiser breaks $1,000,000, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

[edit] Greetings and Source

Greetings! Do you have the source (dia-file) for Image:RC4.png, so I can make it into a SVG-file? --80.63.213.182 16:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you want to let me know your email address, I can email it to you, cheers. — Matt Crypto 16:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Knox

These - Kittybrewster 12:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I bow to your judgment Maybe it needs a note. - Kittybrewster 12:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've also looked it up the ODNB, and it's not mentioned there either. I think we're better off without it unless we can get hold of a reliable source. — Matt Crypto 12:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humor

I see that you reverted my move of humour to humor. Having read the long discussion and arguments on the various talk pages, it seems clear to me that the majority position is to use the spelling "humor". Why move it back again? Jcbutler 21:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've also read the arguments, and it's been debated to death, but I'm afraid I see no majority position, let alone consensus, to move it. — Matt Crypto 21:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, well I won't argue with you, and I don't have time to do a "head count" right now, so let's wait and count the votes as they come in. I've requested a formal move and set up an area for discussion. --Jcbutler 21:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to remove your comments, though you seemed to have removed mine... Were we editing at the same time? Anyway, I'm beginning to regret stepping into such a touchy and humorless topic. Let's let everyone else have their say now. --Jcbutler 21:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Humo(u)r: I realise I probably came across as rather tetchy about this. Sorry about that -- I'm a little stressed out in RL at the moment, so I should probably stay away from these life-or-death (not) spelling debates! — Matt Crypto 22:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I figure I have said my piece and am willing to let the masses decide. Best regards, Jcbutler 23:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Hi Matt, I do have issues with Images on Black people article. As mentioned fair use policy can be used when "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". Well I think one could make a case for pics from the Carteret Islands, considering they are about to disappear under the ocean. There are under 1000 people living in the islands, all about to be evacuated and it takes three days to get there by boat from the mainland islands. Definitely pics from there will not be easy.

In my opinion the aim of the gallery is not just to show random picture of blacks( which are easily available and can be created). That would be meaningless. But rather to show the diversity of black peoples. Ideally this would be notable people or events from around the world.

I think [[Cathy Freeman]'s picture of her winning the gold at Sydney 2000 is a historic photo, the event cannot be repeated. To the rest of the world she arguable the most famous person of Indigenous Australian descent. So I believe the picture does fit fair use rationale.Muntuwandi 11:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your premise that you need to show notable events or famous people. The point remains: we can create an entirely adequate gallery showing the diversity of "black" people without using non-free images. Ergo, we must. — Matt Crypto 11:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What don't you agree with the premise of showing notable events or famous people. Simply put readers easily identify with someone they know versus someone they don't. Yes the pics are non-free but I believe the pictures meet fair use rationale. If there were any free pictures I would use them. The commons and other public domain image sites are poorly stocked. I also do not think you are offering any solutions and are unfairly picking on this article. Most of the photos were obtained from other wikipedia articles where nobody has complained or had them removed for fair use rationale issues.Muntuwandi 16:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it's unfair to address problems when I come across them; nobody could fix all the image problems across the entire wiki, right? I think a gallery is a very good idea, but the overriding consideration is that the images must be free. It really isn't an insurmountable problem for Wikipedia to obtain a selection of free photographs of black people. We have to get away from this way of thinking that if the perfect free images aren't available right now, then we should use non-free images. The free content-ness of Wikipedia is important. For a solution, you could try Wikipedia:Requested pictures or try browsing Flickr's Creative Commons images. — Matt Crypto 17:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctoring

Please see WP:TALK#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable - It is unacceptable to doctor a fellow Wikipedians comment, if you do not like their comment then reply stating so, but do not doctor it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely acceptable to remove personal attacks. Perhaps you would better spend your time reminding Jeffness of the need for civility. — Matt Crypto 00:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I put it back in and will put it back in no matter how many times you take it out. I find it abhorrent that you would even consider trying to remove a comment of that nature. He said it out of clear frustration with a policy. I back his saying it 100%, and question its perceived nature as a personal attack.

We're frustrated. Work with us. For the love of God, work with us instead of being so hard-line on policy. - Stick Fig 03:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no excuse for personal attacks. — Matt Crypto 08:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no excuse for removing them, either. - Stick Fig 18:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaken: WP:RPA. I understand that fair use can be an emotive, even a quasi-"religious" discussion — on both sides. Therefore it's important that everyone exchange opinions in a constructive and respectful way, and not descend into verbal warfare. — Matt Crypto 19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soggy BISCUIT!

I don't want to argue about something as petty as a masturbation game article, but here goes - From the revision prior to mine I see two separate versions of the game: (1) Everyone does it at once, and the last person to get off has to eat the biscuit, and (2) They take turns, and the first person "unable" to go in under two minutes has to eat it. That's how I read it, but of course it's all unsourced in the first place. ✗ Zen. ^➚ 10:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL, OK, yeah, I understand now -- it was a bit unclear that each person in turn had two minutes to, um, "go". Dunno whether we should add it back sans source, but feel free, and I'll just feel queasy... — Matt Crypto 10:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Salamu kutoka sw:wikipedia

Matt je bado uko hai upande wetu? Tunajisikia hatuna wakabidhi tena! --91.5.239.141 14:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Matt this is a serious request for some response from the admins for sw! --Kipala 20:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DES-key-schedule.png incorrect

Hello, the image Image:DES-key-schedule.png states that DES has a 64-bit key, while in reality it is 56 bits. As you are the author of the image, perhaps you can quickly fix it. -- intgr 13:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the diagram is correct. The cipher is specified to accept a 64-bit key, but 8 of those bits are simply ignored by PC1, so it has an effective key size of only 56 bits. — Matt Crypto 14:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My alleged misunderstanding of WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT

My statement of WP:POINT was misinterpreting the situation (I didn't realize Fred had archived). However, you are incorrect about WP:CIVIL; WP:CIVIL#Examples explicitly gives an example of "taunts" being forbidden; that comment was nothing more than a taunt designed to fuel the situation. I'd love to speak to you on IRC, however. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrillic Projector

Hiya, I made some changes to the Cyrillic Projector article, but since I'm one of the people actually listed on the page (and my website is listed among the references), I'd feel better if someone else reviewed my edits, to head off any WP:COI concerns. If you have time, could you please take a look, and verify my changes? Thanks. --El on ka 19:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intellipedia article edits

Hi...I reverted your wholesale section deletions in the Intellipedia article. The Intellipedia/Wikipedia differences section has a reference, and was authored by someone within the IC (in addition to being correct and relevant to the article). The Intellipedia shovel section is also accurate, but the only public source of information, and a picture such as that, is eekim's blog post. Please get in touch with me if there are concerns. das 16:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:MikeURL

Ummm, this user has requested an unblock, and to be honest I do feel the block is a little harsh. It seems to me that his edits, no matter how misplaced - were good faith. I do not wheel war so I havent unblocked, but would appreciate your review of this. Glen 22:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking: I'll leave it up to your judgement whether you want to unblock this user, but I think the block is correct. My view is that his edits were not in good faith. He's arguing that the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't a parody religion...I don't see how anybody could argue that in good faith ;-) Rather, it's overwhelmingly likely, given the topic, that he's trying to make a point about real religions being indistinguishable from a made-up parody religion. — Matt Crypto 23:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Matt, my reason for asking for a review on your part was that the account was created back in 2005, and he has made sensible edits in the past. It also seems he hasnt been warned (before the block) that his actions were inappropriate. I think he feels that because it does not claim to be a parody on the official website, that it isnt one. Just seems that an indef without a warning that if he continues it is forthcoming is a tad premature. Maybe its just me... Glen 23:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI [[2]]MikeURL 16:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

US government agencies discovered editing	Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles	WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

[edit] Wikipedia:Bots/Status

Can you please add the rest of the requested info for your bot? Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 21:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 8	19 February 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed	Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google	WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
News and notes: Brief outage, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

[edit] Get in touch?

Hey Matt, I saw you've traveled to Tanzania somewhat recently. If you don't mind answering a few questions from a yank who's thinking of traveling to Dar + Iringa, could you drop me an email (wdr1 at pobox dot com)?

TIA, -Bill —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.170.35.175 (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 9	26 February 2007	About the Signpost

Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war	Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements	Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

[edit] Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 10	5 March 2007	About the Signpost

New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure	WikiWorld comic: "The Rutles"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

[edit] Men in skirts

In the article Men in skirts, you removed the text "The laws only require people to cover their primary and secondary erogenous zones. In practice this means the genitalia and the breasts, and in some cases a man's chest." Why do you think it is incorrect? Bards 11:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the bit about erogenous zones is incorrect because erogenous zones can include pretty much any part of the body. Actually, even if you replace it with "genitals" or some such, I'm not sure it's actually correct in the UK, at least in general terms; we could do with a reliable source on the issue at least. — Matt Crypto 18:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I accept that it is only 'general knowledge' on my part, although I've understood it to be correct for a long time. Primary and secondary erogenous zones are, I believe, terms used in law, although I might be wrong about that. I think we should put it back in, and add ^{[citation needed]} next to it, inviting supporting evidence, as you have no specialist knowledge of the subject either. Bards 20:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just hold out for a source -- I'm still rather skeptical, I'm afraid! It's not a particularly important point of fact for the men in skirts article either way, though. — Matt Crypto 00:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

ok, it might or might not be correct. But leave it out anyway, as 'irrelevant and superfluous'. Bards 01:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 11	12 March 2007	About the Signpost

Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits	Essay tries to clarify misconceptions about Wikipedia
Blog aggregator launched for Wikimedia-related posts	WikiWorld comic: "Cartoon Physics"
News and notes: Wikimania 2007, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

[edit] Talk:Costco

Do you have a few minutes to read over the debate at the bottom of Talk:Costco and throw in your 2 cents? It'd be nice to get an impartial opinion on the matter. Lunkwill 22:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Allason

I note you removed the proposed publication date for Allason's book. I guess I have no problem with that - but tell me, do you know anything about the publication? There are other references in Wikipedia to the book - quotes even - that suggest it was published in 2006. The publisher does not list it however. Any insights? Verne Equinox 13:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I phoned up "Blackthorn Press" last year, and they hadn't heard of Allason's book. It could be that there are multiple publishers with this name, or the person adding the source got the publisher wrong, but there's also the possibility that the source is outright fabricated: quite what the motive would be, I don't know. Whatever the case, we really shouldn't include a source if it can't be verified that it exists! — Matt Crypto 18:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 12	20 March 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream"	News and notes: Bad sin, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

[edit] Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation


Home \| Archives \| Newsroom \| Tip Line \| Single-Page View	Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey dude.

Fictional portrayals of psychopaths has a persistant sockpuppet editing under a large variety of names. Can you tell me who this is? I wish to do the whole category thing so everyone knows it's a sock with a network of puppet accounts.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 19:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was User:Jaiwills. — Matt Crypto 19:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yay, him again. [3]--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 02:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAR of Humpback Whale

Humpback Whale has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/t/User_talk%7EMatt_Crypto_6529.html"