User talk:Ciphergoth

Hi! The term Parallel Feedback Shift Register (PFSR) is not a new term. Look it up on google. The NL added to it for Non-Linear is perfectly natural, same with L for Linear (LPFSR, some times also known as PLFSR). Just because Trivium and VEST are the first publicly known ciphers to rely on it, it doesn't mean that it's a new term. Of course it's not something you can find in books on cryptology, but there's a lot you can't find in books on cryptology. It doesn't seem to me like a wise decision to revert Wikipedia back to the stone age when it's just as easy to keep it up to date, so you may want to consider reverting the page back to the way it was. I could probably throw in a few more "new" terms that are only known to a very closed group of people and are not found in books on cryptology, but those may be invoking disclosure of classified information. If you want my cooperation here, you may want to open your mind a bit more... And if you don't like NLPFSR, PNLFSR is another viable option to call it, but for the sake of public education, I would have both pages up linking to each other. Same with LPFSR and PLFSR. Parallel feedback in shift registers is simply one of those things that are on the cutting edge of [publicly available] technology. Welcome to the secretive world of cryptology! Cheers! Ruptor 08:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add pages to Wikipedia for any term, such as PFSR, which is verifiably already public currency. However, a Google search confirms my suspicions that NLPFSR is not so. It may be a plausible construction from well known terms, but that is not sufficient reason to give it a page on Wikipedia. If the term is only known in the classified literature, it is not verifiable, so it doesn't belong here; publishing classified information through Wikipedia counts as original research. Wikipedia is not open minded about its policies on Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research.

VEST and Trivium are part of the open research on crypto, and that is by and large anything but a secretive world. It's a very open, friendly and fun world and I'm glad to welcome you to it. For my own part in it, see [1].

On another note, you accused me of bias, and I provided full disclosure. Will you do the same? — ciphergoth 08:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ciphergoth is entirely correct here; if a term has not yet gained widespread use within its field, then we can't include it within Wikipedia. — Matt Crypto 09:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for welcoming me [at last], but somehow you've managed to make me feel like you need to read this Wikipedia policy on welcoming people here. I agree that the NLPFSR acronym itself may not have an easily verifiable source, and I do not mind people calling it whatever they chose - it's a very rare and a very special cryptographic primitive. Just like I do not mind the terms ECB, CBC, ABC, etc, that someone has invented at some stage, I don't mind them choosing a certain acronym for a complex "non-linear parallel feedback shift register" tongue twister. I have accumulated enough knowledge and enough experience in cryptology and cryptanalysis to want to and to be able to share at least some of it with the world. Wikipedia seems like a good place to do it, but it's full of lame articles written mostly by crypto amateurs, which are largely misleading. Comparing its quality and its technical correctness with the quality and with the technical correctness of other cryptographic literature, it's not the kind of encyclopedia I would want to learn cryptography from in my next life, but I wish it was on the same level as other sources. It's much more accessible than anything else. I wonder if there's a policy on technical correctness of what is stated in the articles. A lot of the time it's not even a matter of opinion... Ruptor 12:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: And to a question of "full disclosure", I did not sign up to disclose anything about myself besides the fact that most of that information is either classified or NDA. Is it a Wikipedia policy? No, I am not biased towards or against any cryptographic designs and I do not know anyone in the "scene" personally, besides a few e-mails exchanged with a few people, if that's what you were after. Bias you say? Call me biased. I only find solid unbreakable efficient designs attractive, even though both strong and weak designs are worth studying. For example, I never liked MD5 or SHA, but that's only because I've seen MD5 hashes forged back in 1995 on a single Pentium-100 in 3 days by appending or replacing a block, but as far as the rest of the world is conserned, it's a [reasonably] secure hash. I'm gonna have a hard time here making my crypto-related articles sound neutral, whatever I write about. It's the code-breaker's opinion that matters at the end of the day... Ruptor 12:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: Why didn't you rename/redirect the NLPFSR page to PFSR? PFSR is a good idea. We need it.

I don't mean to bite the newcomer! In fact, I think I did extend a welcome on the page about VEST: "Though I'm laying into VEST here, I don't mean to lay into you. I'm glad you've come onboard and started improving Wikipedia's coverage of crypto!", I wrote. I agree that Wikipedia's coverage of crypto has flaws and needs improving, that's what we're both meaning to do. Unfortunately, whatever you know about classified research isn't going to be so useful here, for the reasons I've explained: Wikipedia can only cover what's public and verifiable.

PFSR does sound like a good idea, that does seem like standard terminology, if rarely used. Feel free to write that page and change the redirect, with my encouragement!

As for bias, if you remember it was not me who first raised the idea. But actually bias shouldn't be a problem here in Wikipedia - there's no reason the authors of a cipher shouldn't contribute to improving the article on it just as much as anyone else, for example. I was just curious because it seemed as if you found my dislike of VEST personally hurtful, so thanks for satisfying my curiosity on this point.

— ciphergoth 14:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[2] [3]

Special:Recentchangeslinked/List_of_cryptography_topics

Test — ciphergoth 18:24, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Ciphergoth

Special:Contributions/Ruptor

⊕

Would you be so kind of restoring your usages of "var" back to E{..} in the Kalman article, because the usage of "var" is not in accordance with the standard Kalman notation found in the litterature.

I'm sorry if you got the impression of me approving for such a change from the talk-page. I didn't read the whole of you're post, and only responded to the question regarding curly brackets around the expectation operator.

I've reacted quite stongly to some of your attempts to "simplify" the Kalman article, like "inventing" your own matrix covariance notation and restructuring the Kalman filter equations for the updated estimate covariance.

I've got the impression that you really don't know what you're talking about, and your attepmts only leading to the paper diverging from the established notation used in the field. This is, at lest for me, a very frightfull development, rendering the article useless for profesionals using the Kalman filter in their work.

I think that the goal should be to create an introductory article of high technical quality, simmilar to the one found in many textbooks; while at the same time being well written and easy to understand for the persons with sufficient background.

What about begining to read a good textbook on Kalman first? I would personally recommend "Introduction to Random Signals and Applied Kalman Filtering" by Brown & Hwang.

I didn't invent that notation. I substantially rewrote the equations in the derivation - have I introduced any errors there? — ciphergoth 23:13, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Your usage of "var" for covariance matrix is not common pracise (probably also incorrect), and can therefore be considered as a flaw. ("cov", on the other hand seems to be used). --Fredrik Orderud 23:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was nominated for administrator and I'd like to hear your opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cburnett. Cburnett 07:26, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Standard notation:

var ⁡ ( X ) = E [ ( X − E [ X ] ) ( X − E [ X ] ) T ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {var} ({\textbf {X}})=E[({\textbf {X}}-E[{\textbf {X}}])({\textbf {X}}-E[{\textbf {X}}])^{T}]}

ALSO standard notation:

cov ⁡ ( X ) = E [ ( X − E [ X ] ) ( X − E [ X ] ) T ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {cov} ({\textbf {X}})=E[({\textbf {X}}-E[{\textbf {X}}])({\textbf {X}}-E[{\textbf {X}}])^{T}]}

ALSO standard notation:

cov ⁡ ( X , Y ) = E [ ( X − E [ X ] ) ( Y − E [ Y ] ) T ] {\displaystyle \operatorname {cov} ({\textbf {X}},{\textbf {Y}})=E[({\textbf {X}}-E[{\textbf {X}}])({\textbf {Y}}-E[{\textbf {Y}}])^{T}]} (the "cross-covariance" between two random vectors)

Unfortunately the first two of these usages jar with each other. The first and third are in perfect harmony. The first notation is found in William Feller's celebrated two-volume book on probability, which everybody is familiar with, so it's surprising that some people are suggesting it first appeared on Wikipedia. It's also found in some statistics texts, e.g., Sanford Weissberg's linear regression text. Michael Hardy 20:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

... so in view of the fact that this notation simplifies things, but that it also may cause confusion due to divergent conventions, I'd go ahead and use it, but with conspicuous notices about which convention you're following, and the fact that there are others. Michael Hardy 21:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

You wrote:

For gaussian noise independance also implies uncorrelated - I think this has to be wrong. I can easily generate two uniformly distributed variables which are uncorrelated but not independent, if their values have to fall in the squares marked X in the grid below:

You're right that it's wrong, but uniformly distributed random variables are not Gaussian! So that's not a cogent example. Michael Hardy 23:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Read on - I later suggest applying Φ^-1 to the uniformly distributed variables to generate gaussians. My later example is simpler though.

In re Kolmogorov's zero-one law: you don't need to capitalize an initial letter merely because it's the first letter of a link. The first one, unlike the later ones, is case-insensitive. Michael Hardy 23:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Actually I knew this but got it wrong in this instance, so thanks for fixing it! — ciphergoth June 28, 2005 12:55 (UTC)

The monkeys can't type out the contents of the British Museum; most of the exhibits are not text. Is British Library meant here?

For now, I'll remove "others replace the National Library with the British Museum or the Library of Congress" altogether, since I don't think it does any useful work anyway. — ciphergoth 09:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

"all the books in the British Museum" is what the story by Russell Maloney said (cited in the article, in the "popular culture" section). Michael Hardy 01:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In your haste to repair Jo and Mike 194.168.45.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)'s nonsense injection into Wikipedia, you may have been a bit overzealous. Rhayader Town F.C., for example, appears from Google to be an actual if rather minor-league sports team. Collabi 08:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiigaran Interceptor because the nomination had not been completed. If you recreate it, it should refer to all five of Special:Contributions/67.173.248.66. -- RHaworth 18:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re Plastic Surgery in Venezuela - surprised by that decision. If you say that because there's already an AFD, I'd like to discuss it further because I have some concerns about that. If you just don't think it's a speedy candidate, I'm surprised but fair enough, that's what the AFD process is for. — ciphergoth 21:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is unrelated to already being on AFD. Speedy deletes have a fixed set of criteria, and while it is obvious that Plastic Surgery in Venezuela should be deleted, it simply doesn't match any of the criteria. So instead of letting the article hang around in CAT:CSD, I removed it. Thue | talk 08:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that answers all my concerns. Thanks! — ciphergoth 08:48, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops...thanks for the info! I'm only marginally familiar with that site and never realized that it was a mirror. Thanks again. - Lucky 6.9 17:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion that was here to Talk:Padding (cryptography)

Owe you another round of thanks. Sometimes, good info gets inadvertently tossed out with mangled rewrites and vandalism. For that, I apologize for creating extra work for you. I didn't detect a single syllable of hostility on your part and I really want to thank you for your graciousness and concern. Wonderful new bio-stub, BTW. Have a great weekend! - Lucky 6.9 20:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed this article while going through speedies, I see that it was tagged as an A7. That's meant for real people and not bands so I removed the speedy and placed it on AFD. Bands don't fall under the non-notable bios section of CSD...I just wanted to let you know so that you could make your feelings known in it's AFD discussion. Thanks! Rx StrangeLove 16:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!— ciphergoth 17:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

why this edit on Solar chimney? Thanks! — ciphergoth 18:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was a sentence I added about the natural temperature gradient that can be used by solar chimneys. On reflection, though, I realized that solar chimneys don't use a natural gradient, but they create one using the greenhouses at the base. StefanoC 07:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR does not apply to vandalism, which adding POV material repeatedly is. ed g2s • talk 13:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the temptation, but I think that's wishful thinking. The usual meaning of the word "vandalism" includes obviously destructive acts with malicious intent: blanking pages, inserting goatse images, adding random gibberish etc. A user who persists in adding POV material can be said to be POV pushing and acting like a twonk, but he's not vandalising. But we can handle such users quite happily using our normal processes, and Ciphergoth's action is spot on -- call in other users to help. — Matt Crypto 16:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added them to my watch list. References to the Heathen Society are not necessarily incorrect, but should be backed up with sources and written in a way that's more NPOV. (Entheta 21:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Biography. Thank you. DreamGuy 07:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see a number of longstanding users such as W. marsh, Capitalistroadster, et al who were in favour of keeping. Even ignoring the anonymous and suspicious "votes", there are far from enough "votes" to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a contributor to Robert Moog, you may wish to comment on the following: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moog records. -- Krash (Talk) 20:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider a redirect to Moog Cookbook? Small mention of Moog records there and it makes sense as a redirect as they are probably the only tribute band in existance for this "genre".--Isotope23 21:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if someone has made edits that are clearly vandalism please use {{subst:bv}} or {{subst:test4}}, otherwise it just lets the user continue to vandalize for a lot longer before people realise that the user should be blocked and gives a lot of unnecessary work for people dealing with more vandalism from that user. Thanks Arniep 17:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally use {{test4im}} and {{test4im-n}} quite a bit. This allows even faster blocking of vandals. Computerjoe 14:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are been civil, I've seen much worse. You seem to care about civility so I suggest you join my organisation: WP:CJ. Thanks. Computerjoe 14:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is valuable to me: Talk:Keyboard instrument#Merging discussion. -- Krash (Talk) 14:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're on the threshold of a no consensus here. I've moved relevant text into the appropriate section of Robert Moog. I continue to contend that "Moog records" is protologism, but I do agree that the style is perhaps worth mention. Would you support a merge and delete? -- Krash (Talk) 23:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ya sorry about that!I actually didnt mean to delete it but valuable stuff i had wrote was deleted too.Ya we can work together.I have tidied it up a bit.You must remember that coursing is made out to be a lot worse than it is.Again sorry and lets get this article up and running! Ian Davies Friend 18:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Ian Davies friend I was just trying to give a npov on the LACS page.I think that it was fair obvioulsy you dont.In Ireland we do not use dogs such as beagles,greyhounds et. to hunt the hare.We hunt them ourselves and do not use dogs who as you probally know would kill the hare.Did you know that we do not use dogs when trying to catch the hares?Ian davies friend 17:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Ciphergoth! I was just over at blood sport and noticed that you had made some recent changes to the last paragraph regarding the distinction between animal welfare and animal liberation activists, which I think is a pretty important one in this case. The purpose of this final paragraph was to tease out the distinction and note the cultural contributions of "blood sports" in modern times (especially here in the area of pets). Although the paragraph could perhaps be worded more eloquently, I thought it worth noting the reason for its existence here. If you feel strongly about it, please delete it again and I will happily try to incorporate the point elsewhere into the article, rather than leaving it hanging there at the end. Thanks! - Rorybowman 17:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually User:JimmyT didn't try and pose as David Gerard- he was simply copying a comment David Gerard make on JimmyT's talk page, back over to David's. Now of course the comments were personal attacks, and JimmyT has been blocked by Freakofnurture for that reason. Hope that clears things up! Petros471 15:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered your proposal for a speedy deletion, actually, but disagreed with them (I also corrected the wrong redirect...) If those people are cited in the other article, I see no reason why not having a redirect. But I will leave your speedy tag in place: if someone else agrees with you, that's fine with me. Bye. - Liberatore(T) 17:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far we notice the following people have definitely been erased: Luigi Ferrer, Wendy Curry, Gary B. North & Margaret Rood.

When we questioned the person who did actual removed them user:Paolo Liberatore they directed us to you as the person who had asked that they be speedily removed. CyntWorkStuff 19:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, the people are fine, only their Wikipedia entries have been erased :-) The articles were deleted under Wikipedia's Criteria for speedy deletion A7 "An article about a real person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." The bar for significance is pretty high: see WP:BIO for details, but "about the significance of a full college professor" is the usual rule of thumb. It seemed to me that these articles didn't meet that bar, so I added a flag to the articles to bring it to an administrator's attention. The administrators agreed, and deleted the articles.

No slight on those people or their achievements is intended; it's just that if people don't meet a certain threshold of fame, then it's unlikely an article will attract enough editors to keep it accurate and WP:NPOV. I hope they all shoot to activist stardom and do us all proud. And there's no argument that people like Lani Ka'ahumanu meet that threshold. It's the nature of Wikipedia that your work doesn't always meet the fate you'd like for it - please don't let it put you off continuing to extend and improve Wikipedia, and let me know if I can help. — ciphergoth 20:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Being somehow involved in this "case", I'll place a suggestion here. If you do not reach an agreement on whether these articles should exist as before, exist as redirects, or not exist at all, you may undergo the WP:AFD process, where the issue would be discussed with other editors. - Liberatore(T) 19:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked for the speedy deletion (with no notification or discussion - I refer you to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion -- 2nd paragraph: It would be friendly to notify the author of the article as well; everyone was new once. ) AND you added the note: FTR I'm a bisexual activist and I've never heard of the guy. I've heard of Klein, Kaahumanu, Hutchins and others . . . . with respect sir, unless we have mixed you with someone else, you would be more active in the Bisexual Community within the UK.

As such you may not be as knowledgeable of the history, activists, organizations, etc. with the USA. CyntWorkStuff

True. However, speedy deletion decisions are made in the basis of what the article asserts, not on domain-specific knowledge; it's unlikely the deleting admin had ever heard of the bisexual community anywhere in the world. The notification of which you speak would usually take place after deletion; speedy really is speedy! Sorry your work was deleted. — ciphergoth 09:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I am confused to see this topic again brought up as I felt it had been put to rest after extensive discussions with Liberatore on 7 March 2006.

In brief the conclusions come to were that it was my error to put in such as short stub that did not adequately reflect the depth, breadth and importance of the people in question in a number of different fields.

Having found that here, as in many other facets of life, that the bisexual community is either dismissed, invisible, written out of the story or our accomplishments incorrectly attributed to others, we have launched a concerted effort to correct the situation.

A prime example in the US of this erasure of bisexual people from the record would be what occurred when prominent Bisexual LGBT-rights Activist, Author [most notably of Getting Bi: Voices of Bisexuals Around the World by Robyn Ochs, Editor & Sarah Rowley, Editor ISBN: 0-9653881-4-X] and Professor, Robyn Ochs married her fience of seven years Ms. Peg Preble. As this article in a well known American newspaper, the Washington Post announced Lesbian Pair Wed After 7 Years Together.

It was our intention, keeping in mind the guidelines we have now learned more about, to write and post the biography's of key US Bisexual Right's activists who we feel are of significant prominence to warrant mention in the Encyclopedia. Among them would be a rewrite of the Bio of Luigi Ferrer. However it was not our intention to start an edit war with you.

Are you saying that after reviewing the same data that you continue to disagree with us and Liberatore and do not feel these US LGBT-rights activists rise to the level of "notability"? CyntWorkStuff 19:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs SOBER-128 CBC-MAC CCMP X.509 Midway Airport (British Columbia) Cryptarchiver Substitution–permutation network SHARK NLFSR Chitra indica Joan Daemen A5/2 A Hard Road GDES Pike (cipher) WAKE Iraqi block cipher Skirgaila Classical cipher

Cleanup Encrypting File System Proxy re-encryption List of IP protocol numbers Merge List of English words of Yiddish origin Streams (networking API) Davies-Meyer hash Add Sources History of cryptography Mohammad bin Sulayem GNU Privacy Guard Wikify Credit card fraud Acatenango Decoders Expand Myth of Er Wildlife management Phenol

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

(This unsigned edit was made by PunchingBag (talk · contribs), a probable sockpuppet of GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs), in response to this edit. — ciphergoth 20:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Hello there. You have proposed the article The American Youth Harp Ensemble for deletion without providing a reason why in the {{prod}} template. You may be interested to know that you can add your reasoning like that: {{prod|Add reason for deletion here}}. This will make your reasoning show up in the article's deletion notice. It will also aid other users in considering your suggestion on the Proposed Deletions log. See also: How to propose deletion of an article. Sandstein 17:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Integer factorization — ciphergoth 12:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested to learn that someone has proposed this article for deletion. You'd discussed it on the article's Talk page at one point, so I thought I would mention it to you. Evertype 16:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Xenaandgabrielle-cropped.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

on Bushism, combined with your edit summaries on BOTH edits shows a level of integrity and honesty not often found. I salute you.--Blue Tie 21:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

. . . . especially now that we have the WikiProject Biography, WikiProject LGBT studies and the new Bi series box? Thanks CyntWorkStuff 02:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:TaisukeMaekawa, by Black Falcon (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Wikipedia:TaisukeMaekawa is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Wikipedia:TaisukeMaekawa, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 18:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several Wikiprojects endorse using caps for species common names. See WP:BIRD for the rationale. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a while ago, but it looks like it was deleted per speedy category g8 (talk page with no corresponding main or user page). Anyway, I reposted it to your userspace (rather than user talk space) at User:Ciphergoth/Please don't use this. NawlinWiki 17:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd like to see a clear consensus emerge." So would I, but that's unlikely to happen. I realize capitalization in mammalia runs counter to the sources, but capitalization is correct orthography, so there's no clear answer. I'd been arguing with Uther from the other perspective on-and-off for months, before flipping to upper case on Cougar. Do you really feel it impedes readability? All I'd suggest is, respect the main contributor when you come to a page. Marskell 13:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Xenaandgabrielle-cropped.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of contributing to the Padding article and wanted to check with you first. Unless the Byte padding schema is accidentally incorrect, I do not see mention of the schema that pads the block cipher with NULL bytes and THEN tags the count of NULL bytes on the end with a single byte containing the number of null bytes of padding (including zero) thus allways producing a cipher of n blocks plus one byte.

Do you know if there is an ANSI/ISO spec for this?

RealWorldExperience (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Creationism2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neelix (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Maraca (hash function), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maraca (hash function). Thank you. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Q (cipher), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Ntsimp (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ciphergoth, I just made a comment to the discussion at Talk:Cycles per byte. Any comments are appreciated. :-) fintler (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. You can subscribe to the mailing list at [4]. Enjoy. fintler (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right ... I found myself using the term 'n I said t'myself, 'Why not use 'acidic?'

Ten dollar words, five dollar words ... your editing is just ...

Thanks, my friend you're a good editor (IMHO) ...

Lomcevak (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I try to be bold, so it's good to hear when I'm getting things right... ciphergoth (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to apologize for pruning the text relating to this proposed RfC after you contributed diff. I was intending to make my text more readable. You may want to consider re-phrasing to make your point but let me know if you would rather I reverted to the original if your comment now looks out of context.—Teahot (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have removed the proposed deletion template from Paul Crowley because the page is a redirect. Redirects can be deleted or otherwise handled via the WP:Redirects for discussion process. Cnilep (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the revision to the Friedmann equations that you removed and answered your criticism in the process. Please note the following:

Other editors seem to be protective of the Friedmann equations article because it is foundational to the hypothesis of accelerating expansion of the universe and dark energy. They seem to prefer not to admit edits that would undermine the utility of FE to the "new standard model of modern precision cosmology".

I seem to be alone in my quest to return Wikipedia to neutral status when it comes to its tacit endorsement of these hypotheses as established scientific fact. Wikipedia is used by millions of readers each year and many of them are journalists looking for a quick background treatment on complex scientific questions. They can easily miss the one line disclaimers that may be present in these articles, buried deep in the body of each text.

I think that it is intellectually dishonest to present these ideas as a part of an established consensus among cosmologists. I amazes me that Saul Perlmutter et al. and Adam Riess et al. have used the FE to "prove" a positive value for Lambda or dark energy and accelerating expansion. The FE are a rough approximation and cannot be used to prove a thing. But, the media do not understand this. I think it is the duty of Wikipedia, as a major online resource, to help them understand it.

It is downright disgusting to me that Perlmutter and Riess have produced fudge factors to bring latter day H naught values into line with extremely distant and ancient H naughts got from SNe Ia data. This fudge factor itself is used to argue that the less distant and younger SNe Ia H naught values bespeak acceleration in the present. One could just as well use a fudge factor from younger H naught values to de-rate the values got with more ancient SNe Ia. Then, the universe is decelerating. What startles me is that the kink in the straight line obtained for magnitude modulus versus redshift does not suggest to either Perlmutter nor Riess that there is unresolved systematic error in the data. The ancient and the younger SNe Ia data were obtained in separate projects, after all.

They assume that the Hubble constant is and must be truly constant. The data must be forced into a single straight line. I think that the history of H naught determinations shows that it is, in fact, variable. Perlmutter's and Riess's data are not the only good determinations of H naught. Values got by many different competent investigators shows that H naught is decreasing toward the present day. The universe expansion rate is decelerating. But, it will never become zero or negative. See http://www.lonetree-pictures.com/ for a graphical representation of this.

The article on the Friedmann equations is the key. If the Friedmann equations are seen to be a hypothetical model among several good ones that are possible and if it is realized that they are not "derived" but depend on the gross simplifications contained in the FLRW metric, blind faith in dark energy cannot be sustained.

I hope you will let my restoration stand. Note that my edits are short and succinct. It is only my TALK comments that are -- ummm -- encyclopedic.

Kentgen1 (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to provide cites for lots of other cosmologists agreeing before it's notable enough to go in Wikipedia. This isn't where you fight this fight; Nature is where you fight it. Wikipedia just records where it's up to. Sorry.

As a person who has made significant contributions to this article, you may be interested to know it has been nominated for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luboš Motl (3rd nomination). Robofish (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do keep coming back, a Littlejohn fan (I suspect it may be Littlejohn himself) is trying to edit out well-sourced material all the time. Come to the discussion page and join in if you can.Thank you! David r from meth productions (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're currently voting in the discussion - several people are trying to take out highly noteworthy and impeccably sourced material, and your input would be really valued.David r from meth productions (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the mess up to the grid energy storage link in Talk:Flywheel energy storage; I must have had finger trouble when I copied the link from your comment into the article. Tim PF (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry in the least - thanks for making the improvement to the article you did! ciphergoth (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who said I was worried. And thanks for the feedback there -- I did wonder when you made that correction, but then didn't add a comment. Tim PF (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ciphergoth, you removed the remark about the two lawsuits being dismissed in the Landmark Education article, commenting that you could find no reference to justify these assertions. In fact refs 50 and 51 in the article are the court documents in question, stating exactly that in the public record. Under the circumstances, perhaps you would revert your edit? Thanks. (reprints of the documents are available at various places on the web, including this one: [[5]]) DaveApter (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[6] ...has just entered my mental list of Best. Quotations. Ever. :-) Congrats.
― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 15:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, this. See also this. I should probably have removed the entire section at the time. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When proposing an article for deletion as you did at Xenon (cipher), a reason should be given in the proposed deletion tag along with an edit summary that clearly indicate the page is being proposed for deletion. Since the article creator is still active, a note should be left at their talk page. Thanks! -- KTC (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zooko's triangle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zooko's triangle until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. MSJapan (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Singularity Institute Logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brockman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Brockman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bradford murders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Mirror. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that in a series of edits some while ago, the algorithm was changed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solitaire_%28cipher%29&diff=497564398&oldid=491038350

Imho, this is nowhere to be found in Bruce Schneier's original description of the algorithm, nor in Daniel Shiu's paper. I have left the details in Talk:Solitaire (cipher)#Algorithm as detailed not congruent with Bruce Schneier's original examples. Could you please verify?

Mwmahlberg (talk) Mwmahlberg (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, if you can read Go (programming language), if have created a an implementation which can be found at https://github.com/mwmahlberg/solitaire Specifically the file https://github.com/mwmahlberg/solitaire/blob/main/solitaire_test.go is of interest, as it proves that my implementation is congruent with Bruce Schneier's examples.

Mwmahlberg (talk) Mwmahlberg (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]