User talk:Matt Crypto

• 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

---

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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)

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!— Preceding unsigned comment 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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

Your input is requested

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

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)

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)

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).

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)

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

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)

Reply

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi

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

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)

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)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost 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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Re:

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

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)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost 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

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 05:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The image is most certainly correct. Speaking of which, Matt; I'm going to use some of your images in my MS thesis and I was wondering if you could email me your name so I can give you credit in my references (martin at nnytech dot. net) — Raidfibre 19:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. --Elonka 19:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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).

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

sw-wiki - bureaucrat needed

Matt, salaam, naombe uangalie kwetu kuna maombi ya akina bot [[4]]. Wasalaam --Kipala 16:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

SW:Template:Infobox_Country

Matt nitafurahia sana kama utapata nafasi ya kusahihisha templeti hii. You know since you did that there has been some change in the English template -not too much but it gives a bit of trouble. Moreover a number of similar templates is available, I just spent some time adapting en:Infobox States of Malaysia to our template. That takes A LOT of time. Now that we are thru with all the countries I work on federate state levels like US, South Africa, Germany etc

I imagine the following to be very helpful: there is this command IF in the templates for the boxes which means that a specific line is only shown if there is an information after the = sign. This would be helpful because it means I just get a strongly abbreviated box if I rebaptize this "Template:Infobox States of Malaysia" (or other similar boxes) as "Template:Infobox_Country". BUT I will not get all this takataka of commands in "}}}" signs because our template demands them. I think it is much easier to add some needed information instead of working thru the whole thing to get these command lines into the rebaptized template many of which are not really needed and they were thrown out of the template to be adapted for some reason (like: currency, UTC...).

I hope you understand that! I don`t manage that syntax, spent too much time on it and it still did not work. So can you get this IF-option into the template? I think we should be able then to use many of the state templates simply by renaming them. Rgds --Kipala 09:23, 28 Aprili 2007 (UTC)

RC4 question

Hi Matt,

You seem very knowledgeable about crypto and you gave a great answer to my question on MD5 before, but I've found something a little puzzling about the Python example of RC4 on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the code or RC4 in general, but using similar keys like "aaaaa" and "aaa" seem to generate the same ciphertext with the Python example code.

If it isn't too much trouble, could you take a look one time?

Kind regards, --Tim1988 ^talk 17:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

sw-wiki

Hi Matt - hope you are still alive! Kindly get us some bot flags for the following bots: Siku hizi kuna bot tatu zinazojaza orodha ya mabadilisho: Robbot, CommonsDelinker na TXiKiBoT . Naomba ufuatilie. --Kipala 11:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 19	7 May 2007	About the Signpost

Four administrator accounts desysopped after hijacking, vandalism	Digg revolt over DVD key spills over to Wikipedia
Debate over non-free images heats up	Update on Wikimania 2007
Norwegian Wikipedian awarded scholarship	WikiWorld comic: "Friday the 13th"
News and notes: Election volunteers, admin contest, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:CommonsDelinker

Hi Matt, it looks like you choose to block User:CommonsDelinker. This means that currently no automatic replacements on Wikimedia Commons or deletions from Commons are processed here on en.wp. I think it would be a good idea to unblock the user.

You have stated in the block message that there was no way to find out who the maintainer was. That's interesting, as you wrote a note on the talk page below the link to the maintainer and there is elaborate documentation on the page where the user page for User:CommonsDelinker points to on meta. I got no message from you, which was too bad. I'm glad you were able to repair the flaw. I'll look into what may have caused it, although there is no tracking and tracing information. The bot definately does more good than harm. As far as I've been able to determine, bad edits occur just a few out of a thousand and getting Commons duplicates down (32.000 mid April) will definately help in reducing the type of error you decided the block the bot for.

Please reply on my Commons or nl.wp user page, as this is not my home wiki. Cheers! Siebrand 12:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I'll reply here — I feel that if you wish to run a bot on en, you have to be willing to interact about it on en. Further, according to our policy (WP:BOT), "Sysops should block bots, without hesitation, if they are unapproved, doing something the operator did not say they would do, messing up articles, editing too rapidly, or running anonymously." I feel that the onus is on a bot operator to make sure it works, simply because a malfunctioning bot can do a lot of damage. Therefore, personally, I'd like some assurances that it's been fixed before unblocking, but I'm happy to be overruled by other admins on the noticeboard. — Matt Crypto 18:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun

Hi, I notice you commented to "Keep" the article and later after the deletion had been closed by an uninvolved party, you opened it again. Given the conflict of interest, I would appreciate if you would revert your previous edit to the deletion debate and close the discussion. If not, I shall do so myself. The same applies for the article. If your unhappy about the deletion, you know full well that you go to deletion review, not wheel war to force your preferred outcome on the rest of us. -- Nick ^t 17:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Matt, undoing another admin's action without any discussion whatsoever is wheel warring, and is likely to get you desysopped. Ask Geni about it. Please reverse your action pending some discussion.--Doc^g 17:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, yes, wheel warring is bad; sorry. However, I undid Drini's action, who had just undone another admin's action. I presume that you also want Drini to undo his action, for the same reason. With that in mind, the article is now in the state it would be if both of us undid our actions. — Matt Crypto 18:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Em, no. Please reverse your wheel warring and nevermind Drini. Drini closed an AfD which was 8 days old. I see no problem with that. Daniel Byant may have chosen not to, but nothing precludes another admin choosing to do that. No-one owns an AfD and closing after 5 days is perfectly reasonable. If you disagree, then discuss it with him or go to DRV. Wheel warring is not good. Please reverse.--Doc^g 18:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Erm, no. I'll assume that both I and Drini have reversed our actions, and that the AfD is therefore in the correct state. I'll not be wasting any more of my time on this. — Matt Crypto 18:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Since discussing this is 'wasting you time' I've refered it to ANI. I hope a formal arbitration can still be avoided.--Doc^g 18:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun

You commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun. It has been closed early after a confusing and IMO unfortunate sequence of events. I have now listed it on Deletion Review. You may wish to express your views there. DES ^(talk) 01:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

SW: Bot tena

Matt, naomba umwangalie EDUCA33E . --Kipala 11:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:GNUPG logo.png

Hello, Matt Crypto. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:GNUPG logo.png) was found at the following location: User:Matt Crypto/CryptoStats/ArticleHits. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 20	14 May 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator status restored to five accounts after emergency desysopping	User committed identities provide protection against account hijacking
Academic journals multiply their analyses of Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Ubbi dubbi"
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 08:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a sock or two fell out of your drawer

• Bottom of the Ninth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
• Suffocate Me with a Perfumed Pillow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Might also be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP_check#Jaiwills The Evil Spartan 18:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Another: Hey Buddy, Buddy!. Not sure how I missed that one. The Evil Spartan 22:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:New-sci-xsl.png

Hello Matt Crypto, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:New-sci-xsl.png) was found at the following location: User:Matt Crypto/CryptoStats/ArticleHits. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pan.png

Hello Matt Crypto, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Pan.png) was found at the following location: User:Matt Crypto/CryptoStats/ArticleHits. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

You have been listed as a party in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Qian Zhijun due to your undeleletion of that article and reversal of Drini's AfD close. You may wish to make a statement there. WjBscribe 16:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No thanks; life is too short. — Matt Crypto 21:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

BOT on SW

Matt, tena huyu Bot aliyebadilisha jina sasa. "Le Pied-bot". Je unakosa nafasi kupita kwetu? --Kipala 19:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 21	21 May 2007	About the Signpost

Corporate editing lands in Dutch media	Spoiler warnings may be tweaked
WikiWorld comic: "Disruptive technology"	News and notes: LGBT project mention, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 22	28 May 2007	About the Signpost

Controversy over biographies compounded when leading participant blocked	Norwegian Wikipedian, journalist dies at 59
WikiWorld comic: "Five-second rule"	News and notes: Wikipedian dies, Alexa rank, Jimbo/Colbert, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

sw-wiki: kuandikisha Osamabot

Matt, naomba uangalie ombi la osamabot. --Kipala 20:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

TEA and related diagrams

Hello, I notice that the images Image:TEA.png and Image:XTEA.png are labelled as "public domain" authored by yourself, but they appear to be reduced copies of the images found online. Are you the author of this page yourself, or am I mistaken about copying? -- intgr ^#%@! 15:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm the author of that page. I really should rerender them as SVG at some point. — Matt Crypto 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 23	4 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, banned	Admin restored after desysopping; dispute centers on suitability of certain biographies
Controversial RFA suspended, results pending	Dutch government provides freely licensed photos
WikiWorld comic: "John Hodgman"	News and notes: Another Wikipedian dies, brand survey, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 07:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Swahili bots

Hi Matt, could you please have a look at the bots at Swahili wikipedia and grant bot status at least to: Robbot [5], OsamaKBOT [6] and TXiKiBoT [7]. Thanks! Oliver Stegen

Permissions for Image:PRZ closeup.jpg.

Could you forward the permission for this image to permissions@wikimedia.org and add a {{PermissionOTRS}} tag to the image once you get the confirmation email? Thanks. (Also, if they agreed to only the standard GFDL, could you remove the disclaimers from the image tag?) grendel|khan 15:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 24	11 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Privacy report lists Wikipedia among best sites, but needing improvement	Board candidacies open, elections planned
WikiWorld comic: "Why did Mike the Headless Chicken cross the road?"	News and notes: Ontario error, no consensus RFA, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 02:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Bots on sw-wiki

Matt, bots without flags keep on popping up on sw-wiki. Like this TXiKiBoT. Don't you have time to check at least once a week on your own ?? Kindly react on your sw-page which at the moment is pretty bure nikitaka kukuachia ujumbe. --172.176.13.68 10:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 25	18 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikipedia critic's article merged	Board election series: Election information
Admin account apparently compromised, blocked	Controversial RfA withdrawn, bureaucrats fail to clarify consensus
WikiWorld comic: "They Might Be Giants"	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 08:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Codebreaker

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Codebreaker, by Usien6 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Codebreaker fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Bad redirection.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Codebreaker, 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. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Codebreaker itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 01:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Byrialbot at swwiki

Hello Matt Crypto! I am asking for a bot flag to Byrialbot at the Swahili Wikipedia. Details are on you Swahili user talk page. Thank you, Byrial 10:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC).

Bruce Schneier

The image you uploaded on commons is pending deletion. With a ludicrous motivation, BTW. Cheers --Alien Life Form 13:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Assistance

Hi, I was asking around for assistance in identifying an East African legend, and I was directed to you and another user. Right now, all I have is the title in Japanese and a somewhat good translation. It can be seen at Imagin#Molech. I only know that the legend is Kenyan, but I don't know what group.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Recipes are not copyrightable

You stated, "a written recipe is certainly copyrightable." That is patently incorrect. Read some copyright law before you make sweeping -- and blatantly false -- statements like this. Lists of ingredients like those found in recipes, formulas, or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection. As well, instructions are not copyrightable because there is no literary expression. Copyrights do not protect mere words, sentences, or paragraphs; they protect literary expression. Ingredients, lists, and instructions are not literary expression and not copyrightable. This has long been established in copyright law. 71.175.28.241 22:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I was flagged to this discussion page on a legal bulletin board. The above poster is correct. Courts have consistently refused to extend copyright protection to recipes -- even to entire cookbooks. The ingredients portion in a recipe -- a mere declarative list -- is not protected as it falls under a "Section 102(b)" exclusion, which specifically states, "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." The ruling case, by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the established precedent, holds that recipes cannot be copyrighted because of 102(b). The narrative portion of recipes, the so-called "directions," cannot be normally protected by copyright because they are considered narrative of a "typical procedure," as defined by the Sixth Circuit. Statements like "add sugar to a bowl and slowly stir in water" are descriptive of a typical procedure and not a literary expression, thus again not protected by copyright. Descriptive text, for example, about how your grandmother used to tell stories while adding sugar to a bowl, however, are a unique form of expression. The baked ziti recipe you struck, in contrast, had no such narrative prose that would not be considered "typical" and cannot be protected by copyright as a matter of law. It is clearly in the public domain. Cheers, Tony G. Esq.

P.S. You might want to check out the book "Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How it Threatens Creativity," by Siva Vaidhyanathan. He specifically discusses the subject of internet sharing of recipes and how -- wrongly -- some people have censored contributors because of the misguided belief that recipes are protected by copyright. T.G.

Turing's birthplace

You seem to be active in the Alan Turing article. May you check where Turing was born? 3 other websites listed different locations. /user.talk 03:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article is correct about his birthplace; which websites disagree? — Matt Crypto 07:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Turing.html

http://www.turing.org.uk/turing/

http://www.alanturing.net/turing_archive/pages/Reference%20Articles/Bio%20of%20Alan%20Turing.html

http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/Turing.html

http://www.madehow.com/inventorbios/56/Alan-M-Turing.html

These are the first few I found on google. Also, you should respond to people's comments on their own talk pages; if you leave a reply on your own talk page, it might not be read, unless you leave a notice at the top of your page that replies will be left here. Since I have found such damning evidence, I'm changing the article. /user.talk 01:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And [8] is the offending edit. /user.talk 02:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait, forget it. It says he was conceived in India, and born in London. My apologies. /user.talk 02:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. I feel I should also mention that wiki-etiquette is that if you ask a question on my talk page, then it's up to you to look for a reply here; there's no obligation to reply on your talk page. People have different reply styles, and that's OK. — Matt Crypto 05:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome with the new reference. /user.talk 05:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have the main biography of Turing upstairs. I'll check it over the weekend. All the best. User:Matt.whitby

Please stop vandalizing my user page

You repeatedly vandalize my user page under the pretense that recipes are copyrighted. Even the material you quote proves you wrong. As well, you're not following Wikipedia policy on copyrights, which state: "If you suspect a copyright infringement, you should at the very least bring up the issue on that page's talk page. Others can then examine the situation and take action if needed. The most helpful piece of information you can provide is a URL or other reference to what you believe may be the source of the text.

"Some cases will be false alarms. For example, if the contributor was in fact the author of the text that is published elsewhere under different terms, that does not affect their right to post it here under the GFDL. Also, sometimes you will find text elsewhere on the Web that was copied from Wikipedia. In both of these cases, it is a good idea to make a note in the talk page to discourage such false alarms in the future."

You've done none of this. You apparently just assume you're right and expect everyone else to bow to your will.

The recipe on my homepage is from my published cookbook, which is cited on the baked ziti article page. Simply because you found a similar recipe elsewhere on the web -- which very likely was copied from my cookbook -- is no reason to presume my homepage is a copyvio.

Please stop acting like a dictatorial child, please stop harassing me, and please follow Wikipedia policy. You are trying to make this a personal matter, and for that reason, you should recuse yourself from any further participation in this matter. Carmela Soprano 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate this with you. The page is now protected, end of story. — Matt Crypto 20:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You're not going to debate this because you know you can't make a rational nor cognizant analysis and because you know you're in way over your head. So take your toys and go home. You are exactly the reason why Wikipedia is on the decline and why professional writers and professional editors find this place laughable. You'd rather play the petty dictator and attempt to bend people to your will in flexing your petty administrative powers than to resolve a matter like a mature adult. You claim to be in favor of civility yet your behavior is shockingly uncivil and you were appallingly rude to me. You provided not a shred of evidence that recipes were copyrightable. Your own proof contradicts you. Others provided detailed legal material about why recipes are not copyrightable. You ignore them. Enjoy your petty little fiefdom here; you have nothing else to offer. Carmela Soprano 01:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It also bears noting that your blocking of my user page is a clear violation of Wikipedia blocking policy: "Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." Your blatant violation of this official policy only underscores the fact that your actions are capricious and directed at me personally. Carmela Soprano 01:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Further, you are clearly violating the protection policy, which states "During edit wars, admins should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute. Once again, considering your insistance not to involve a third party administrator, this only underscores how you are ignoring Wikipedia policy in your quest to get the proverbial "last word." Carmela Soprano 02:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 26	25 June 2007	About the Signpost

Board election series: An interview with the candidates	RfA receives attention, open proxies policy reviewed
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer"	News and notes: Logo error, Norwegian chapter, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 07:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot bits

Hi Matt Crypto,
Could you have a look at sw:Wikipedia:Jumuia#Bot status BotMultichill? Thank you, multichill 11:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Whitecross.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Whitecross.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 06:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

BOTs on sw !!!

Matt, will you kindly check your page on sw? People are requesting for BOT-status and get no reaction. Why dont you put a large hint where to request for BOT-status if you dont look into it regularly? As our only bureaub´crat you should do it anyway. Wasalaam --Kipala 09:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kipala, apologies for the delay. I don't have very much time these days (having a job is good, but time-consuming compared to being a student!) I fixed the latest batch. We could really do with a more active bureaucrat on sw to handle this stuff, I guess. — Matt Crypto 15:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 28	9 July 2007	About the Signpost

Seven administrators request promotion to bureaucrat status	Board election series: Elections closed, results pending
Wikimedia Foundation hires consultant, general counsel	Newspaper obituary plagiarizes Japanese Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Ann Coulter"	News and notes: FA stats, top information site, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 07:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 29	16 July 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Filling in with a new feature
Möller, Walsh retain seats; Brioschi elected	British agency cites Wikipedia in denying F1 trademark
Two new bureaucrats promoted	Wikipedian bloggers launch "article rescue" effort
Book review: The Cult of the Amateur	WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 19:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 30	23 July 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "World domination"	News and notes: "The Wikipedia Story", visa ruling, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Reuploading your diagrams as SVG

Hi Matt,

I love all of your cryptography diagrams—they're well done, and add significantly to their articles. Could you re-upload them to Wikimedia Commons as SVG files, since most of them are diagrams anyway? I'm not sure whether Dia supports that format or not; you could also use Inkscape, which is a good SVG editor. If you don't have the time or inclination to do this, let me know, and I'll start working on them in my spare time. (I just didn't want to start mass-replacing your images :-)) Cheers, bdesham ★ 20:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

WHIRLPOOL

There's a fair number of cryptography algorithms that are normally named with all-capitals. When that's the normal usage in the literature, then it's preferable that they be located at that name on Wikipedia, even if it's a trademark (and I doubt that WHIRLPOOL is a trademark). — Matt Crypto 06:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If it isn't a trademark, what is it? I was unable to find any indication that it's an acronym, and the official website indicates that it's "named after the Whirlpool galaxy." I don't see why our normal style conventions wouldn't apply. —David Levy 07:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, WHIRLPOOL is just a name. If a name's normally rendered in all capitals in the literature, then we should use that. — Matt Crypto 07:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That isn't what the MoS says. —David Levy 07:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Where are you looking in the MoS? It darned well shouldn't say that. — Matt Crypto 07:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) —David Levy 07:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that needs to be fixed. However, in this case I don't believe either WHIRLPOOL or PANAMA is a trademark. — Matt Crypto 07:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, what are they? —David Levy 07:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The answer I gave before is that they are just names. It seems sensible to put an article about a topic at its name, preferably in the form of that name that is used in external sources (if there is one). I haven't really taken much effort to look to see how WHIRLPOOL or PANAMA are used, but I think that usage should be the deciding factor. — Matt Crypto 16:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how these names fail to meet the definition of the word trademark. —David Levy 08:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how they do meet the definition. Simply giving a name to an algorithm doesn't make that name a trademark. — Matt Crypto 19:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I referred you to our trademark article. Are you claiming that these names are not "used by an individual, business organization or other legal entity to uniquely identify the source of its products and/or services to consumers, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities"? —David Levy 20:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. — Matt Crypto 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please elaborate. How does that description fail to apply? —David Levy 22:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

How does it apply? — Matt Crypto 22:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Vincent Rijmen and Paulo S. L. M. Barreto are individuals. They use the distinctive indicator "WHIRLPOOL" to uniquely identify the source of their product (a cryptographic hash function) to consumers and distinguish it from those of other entities. —David Levy 22:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The words "product" and "consumers" point to the problem: there is no trade going on here, yet trademarks are very much concerned with the marketplace. WHIRLPOOL and PANAMA are public domain, unpatented algorithms published as academic research. — Matt Crypto 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

1. You're drawing a distinction where none exists. Something needn't be commercial in nature to be the subject of trade or for its name to be a trademark. Wikipedia is a nonprofit entity, but that doesn't mean that "Wikipedia" isn't a trademark.

2. What relevance does this have to the principles behind the applicable MoS entry? You've expressed disagreement with it, but that's beside the point. —David Levy 23:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Something needn't be commercial in nature to be the subject of trade" — well, trade isn't far off being a synonym for commerce. However, in all honesty, I care very little about trademarks. The principle I care about is that Wikipedia should use the names and styles that everyone else uses in the literature of that topic. And it's not at all uncommon for certain crypto algorithms to be usually rendered in all-caps, even when they're not acronyms. — Matt Crypto 00:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Some companies and other organizations (such as DIRECTV) style their names in all-caps, but we don't follow suit. It's reasonable for you to disagree with the MoS entry (and seek to change it), but it clearly applies to this situation. —David Levy 02:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it clearly applies at all, but I don't have enough enthusiasm to debate trademarks again... — Matt Crypto 09:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Christianity explored

A tag has been placed on Christianity Explored, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how Christianity Explored is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Christianity Explored saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. Nondistinguished 11:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that the proper procedure for reviewing a deletion decision by the community is to go through deletion review. You should not just undelete the article yourself. --Nondistinguished 11:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I reported your action to AN/I for further review as to whether this action constituted a breach-of-trust of your administrator abilities. --Nondistinguished 11:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have re-deleted the article, found my way to the WP:ANI thread and eventually here. Matt, the process for un-deleting an article which was deleted via xFD is through DRV. Please take the discussion there if you wish to restore and do not begin wheel warring over this article. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)