User talk:Acdx

Welcome!

Hello, Acdx, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  JFW | T@lk 23:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Floaters

Hello, Acdx. I'd just like to know - how did you make the image of the floaters in that article? They are identical to the ones that I see! Did you use a Photoshop brush, then make it transparent and emboss it? —Vanderdecken∴∫ξφ 15:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did some brush strokes on a couple of separate layers, made the fills near-transparent and applied emboss. Acdx (talk | contribs) 15:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

News is news is news.

1. It didn't require a subscription. It was blatantly free on my Google News page, and it continues to appear on a random basis (Interspersed, as I have noticed now, with "Crash Not Actually Found")
2. The article I used did not have a timestamp, as such it makes it difficult to determine the which article is the most recent.
3. You can remove the dispute tag as I have removed the sourced statements I added, unless you have something more accurate to state.
4. Instead of making this angry sounding post on my talk page, I'd like it better if you reverted me, THEN warned me. That seems to be a better use of time.
5. The LA Times isn't reliable?

   User:Logical2u_Talk 20:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, apologies if I sound angry... I'm doing some work in the background being easily distracted by Wikipedia... When I came back here, I reread what I wrote, and I thought "Ogod, I'm banned for Personal Attacks now". At least it's over... User:Logical2u_Talk 20:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Floaters.png

Hi, Acdx! I'd like to upload your image Floaters on Commons, to use it on the italian article about floaters... do you have any abjection about that? --IlSoge aka Sogeking 14:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! It's a good image, you know, they're exactly like the floaters I see... Bye! --IlSoge aka Sogeking 13:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Xraybad.gif

Hi, I saw your message on User talk:TechnoFaye. I deleted the image as a copyright violation. Garion96 (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Shallow water blackout

I see you have vectorised the SWB images, which is fine and looks nice and clean but in the clean-up I believe part of the story has been lost. Originally, the time spent in air and the time spent underwater were coloured, now the interpretation of the images is dependeant on reading the text, which for many people undermines the power of the graphic to explain. You may wish to consider some colour fill. My view is that if a graphic is used it should be capable of telling the whole story graphically and not rely on text, this isn't always possible but once the labels have been read once it should be possible. A it stands the concpet is less intuitive than it could be. I did the original images, the ones before the ones you replaced by the way. Nice work though, I looked at your other images. Ex nihil (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Also, the blue dashed line needs to be labelled as the CO2 trigger or there is no indication of what it is there for. It may be neccessary to also indicate that anywhere below the O2 blackout line is blackout territory rather than just a line. Ex nihil (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		For improving the Wiki graphical experience for many Ex nihil(talk) 04:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! – Acdx (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Independently of this Barnstar I come to say thanks because I saw some nice images you made! Thanks! - Jalanpalmer (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! – Acdx (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Relativity of simultaneity picture

Thanks for your SVG rendering of my picture. However, I notice that in your picture, the red grid covers the blue one (this is particularly visible on the blue axes). Could you make it so that each of the three channels of the image shows an "unbroken" picture, as in my original PNG version? Thanks in advance. --___A. di M. 23:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Mnemonic

Hi Acdx! You put a clean up tag on Mnemonic, but would you please on the talk page explain what you think should be improved about the article? Lova Falk talk 17:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

floaters

Thats a great picture, that you've made. Thats how it looks like, thx! -- 89.196.37.202 (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! – Acdx (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Digital signature diagram

Hello Acdx, is the diagram correct? From my point of view you need certificate to validate public key at verify time, e.g. that someone didn't use his/her private key and forged the document signature and supplied you with his/her public key. So you use this certificate to verify that the public key is authentic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wazdc (talk • contribs) 15:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, my diagram assumes the public key is known in advance by the verifying party, either through a certificate like you said, or some other prior communication. Applications of public-key cryptography often work entirely without certificates, take ssh for example. – Acdx (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I don't say that you have to have certificate, only that certificate makes sense (or at least how I understand it) in verification process (for verifying that you have correct public key. I found it a bit misleading that you attach, even if optionally, certificate to digital signature, since digital signature is the hash itself, regardless or certificate - e.g. you only need private key to generate it and I believe certificate should be on the right side of the picture, i.e. when you compute hash with public key (but not in the algorithm itself but in verification of public key only). Wazdc (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not actually attaching the certificate to the signature, I'm attaching it optionally to the document; what is labeled as the 'Signature' in the diagrams is always just the encrypted hash.

What is implied in the verification diagram is that the verifier knows who the signer is and has their public key. This is an essential requirement for any digital signature to work, and can be satisfied in different ways: by the verifier obtaining the public key of the signer beforehand, or by validating a particular key used for the signature by looking at certificates that tie the key to the trusted party. Neither method is documented in the diagram, and if I wanted to be really consistent I'd remove any mention of certificates from the first diagram too. – Acdx (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would remove the certificate from the first diagram, so the two are consistent. If the first shows the certificate optionally being attached to the document, the second should show it as an optional source for the public key, but that I think would unduly complicate an otherwise very clear diagram. Having it only in the first wrongly implies it is only relevant when signing. AP61 (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree on the slight inconsistency. Basically, my diagram doesn't concern itself with where the keys used for signing and verification come from. I included a certificate in the signing diagram because in many cases one gets attached at this point, and it makes for a more complete definition of what "digitally signed data" might consist. It's not meant to signify anything more than "a piece of paper called a certificate is often included." These were my thoughts when I created the diagram. – Acdx (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

skittles picture

sorry for replacing your picture, since it's not a bad picture of candy as most of them are. i basically have gone through the candy world and taken images of wrappers and candies separately for articles, and eventually reached the skittles page. i would have left it there since it's not a bad picture, but then the image becomes redundant. but the copyright for pictures about products is a bit murky, since product packaging still retains things like copyrighted logos and artwork, etc. i would love nothing more than to put original-size pictures of the product package shots i've done, but have to make them all small and declare them fair use non-free blah blah. you can get a better sense if you look at the "product" photo template on the upload file section, or look at the candy product shots on the articles. sometimes that isn't enough, you can see the mire the stupid picture i took of the cheez-it box is on its page, which someone thinks still doesn't qualify.

anyway, sorry about replacing your picture. also, you have some great pictures in your user gallery.

Evan-Amos (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Heroin

Thanks for the tip Acdx. I notice that you have made an image of the structure of LSD. Have you ever used it?

--Axxaer (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, what are your thoughts on Talk:Opioid_comparison#Codeine_columns? --Axxaer (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hard-disk drive

Hi, is it a hard "disk drive" or a "hard disk" drive? I am almost certain it should be read as the second one. Tony (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Strange trapezium ?

Hi, I am using your file "quadrilaterals"

on sw wiki. I am not an expert but why should the first shape be a trapezium? All definitions I know say it should have 2 parallel sides. Do I overlook something? Kindly reply on my user page at sw sw:Majadiliano_ya_mtumiaji:Kipala as I do not often pass by here. Kipala (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Your talk page on the Swahili Wikipedia seems to be protected, so I'll answer here. My diagram is a copy of File:Quadrilateral.png, and I can't exactly say what the intentions of the author were, but it seems to me that "trapezium" is an American English-only term for a quadrilateral with no parallel sides. A quadrilateral with two parallel sides on the other hand is called a "trapezoid" in American English and a "trapezium" in British English. So essentially, the first shape doesn't have any special name in British English, so only the American term is listed. – Acdx (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Epstein-Barr virus

I have declined your db-move request, because there is an Arbcom injunction decreeing "a moratorium on article title changes that are due to hyphen/endash exchange" until some way forward from the interminable "en-dash wars" is agreed - see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Injunction on article title disputes secondary to hyphen/endash issue. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the color by removing the "color" parameter from that page. Thanks for the note, though, that effect was unintended, so I'll see if I can't fix the template. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Image Deletion

A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Minecraft RNG

Hi! Regarding your change on Minecraft, see also Talk:Minecraft#Picture showing randomly generated landscape. Personally, I don't really care either way, just letting you know this was brought up. Cheers. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)