User talk:Matt Crypto

; 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;

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

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))[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Signpost updated for November 27th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 48	27 November 2006	About the Signpost

Arbitration Committee elections: Candidate profiles	Steward elections begin
Group apologizes for using Wikipedia name in online arts fundraiser	News and notes: 1.5 million articles, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation


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

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 01:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

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.