User talk:Matt Crypto/archive4

220.233.86.233

User:220.233.86.223 is back. I thought he was permanently banned?

One Salient Oversight 00:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I REALLY REALLY NEED YOUR HELP AND SUPPORT

See here for details: Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/user 220.233.86.223 --One Salient Oversight 05:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

he's back Talk:Potter's_House_Christian_Fellowship I obviously don't have the energy anymore to fight this. This guy has managed to work around his banning and continue his attacks on me. Can I please please please trust someone to do the RFC and take up my case against this guy? I had the police in the other night and they had no idea what was going on and couldn't help me. This guy has my address and phone number and is quite mad at me. If you look at the way he writes and the content he puts in, it is obvious that he is off the deep end. Help. One Salient Oversight 22:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my discussion page Matt. The only reason I'm talking to the guy is that "If he's talking, he's not stalking". Why is it that he got around his banning? One Salient Oversight 21:07, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Calcutta -> Kolkata name change

Hi there. I noticed you voted in the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll to keep the Wikipedia policy of naming an article with the most familiar English name. You may not be aware that another attempt has begun to rename the Calcutta article to Kolkata, which is blatantly not the most common name of the city, whether it's official or not. If you want to vote on the issue you can do so at Talk:Calcutta. Cheers. – Necrothesp 13:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hehehe! I just wanted to insert my two cents. Being currently in India not too far from the place, I couldn't help but notice the number of Indians here... It's close to a billion. That's not to count the 700 million Pakistani... It kinda beats the entire English-speaking world by the number making the "not the most common name" argument sound like a hillarious joke. But personally I don't care either way. Just found it funny. Ruptor 04:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for all your help here during my little "trouble". If ever you are in the region of Newcastle, Australia, you can always pop in for a free Thai Peanut Curry and a bed! One Salient Oversight 10:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Fatigue League

Hi there! Thank you for alerting me to this fellow's theft of my identity. I hope I haven't been a little too heavy-handed in nuking his user page, but for Wikipedia's sake (and not just mine), I think it best to put a stop to this kind of behaviour before it goes any further. A click on the USER CONTRIBUTIONS link shows that he has created a couple of trash articles. I've nuked one of them. David Cannon 11:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for your comments. I try to be civil but sometimes it is necessary to be blunt to get a point across. Adam 21:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Howdy

Took a look at your user page. I like your style. Could use more editors like you. Pleased to meet you. Tom Haws 18:35, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Planes

Hi Matt

I've just uploaded three image files for secret sharing. They might be a bit big, let me know if you want them smallerized, or if you want text labels.
a single plane
two planes intersect along a line
three planes intersect at a point

PGP "data format"

Hi,

In Pretty Good Privacy's change log you write:

I'm not sure about the importance of "and associated data format"

I think it's quite important given the existence of independent re-implementations of the PGP formats and the consequent need for interoperability; the data format these days has an independent existence and destiny to the software derived from Zimmermann's code. IMO, it's necessary to keep the two separate in order to have a clear explanation of how they interrelate.

In particular, I added that to give myself licence to talk later about "V3 keys", "V4 keys" and so on. (This isn't entirely covered by the discussion of OpenPGP, as "V3 keys" and the associated message formats predate OpenPGP.)

JTN 20:53, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

the plane! the plane!

yeah sure GFDL is good. I'm not that well informed about the various flavours of Gnu license but from what I read in the article about it, GFDL looks appropriate.

Did you want text labels put on? And would marking the line / point where the planes intersect improve legibility? I can add these if it does.

Added emphasis images are up

I've uploaded images with extra emphasis for secretsharing. see Image:Secretsharing-3-point.png and Image:Secretsharing-2-line.png

cheers stephen

Abuse

Thanks, Matt! Pete 12:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am always courteous to legitimate editors, even when I have disagreements. But I deal with vandals and trolls as they need to be dealt with. It is only because some editors are willing to stand up to people like Skyring that Wikipedia is not an even bigger mess than it already is. Adam 09:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Diffie–Hellman key exchange

There isn't any word about Diffie–Hellman key exchange algorithm in history section of articles Public-key cryptography and Asymmetric key algorithm, I think it is the first public asymmetric-key cryptography algorithm. Am I right? Gbiten 21:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

S/Key expansion and images

Hello, this is user Lucw, I am replying to your message about the S/Key article expansion. First of all thanks for the encouragement. The images are my own, I have created them with Dia. I want to make them available in the least restricting license available, it seems like public domain is what I want. I have tagged the images and have added links to the source files (.dia files). I don't know if this in common practice on wikipedia but it seems like a good idea. Lucw 04:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your Admin Approval Message

Hi there. Have to say I'm a bit shocked (and thrilled!) that you've been puzzling after it for this long. As a hint, it's phonetic. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Decryption matrix response

From what I've read on the internet its a common device used in codebreaking. Buy a book on computers if you want to know more. – Old Right 21:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SRP

Hi there. I just came about the almost orphaned article Secure remote password protocol. Do you know something about that topic? Do you think it would make sense adopting it properly? Cheers – Nikai 13:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for Nomination

Hi Matt,

thank you for nominating my common whipping pictures!

--Hella 18:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC), who did them originally for teaching girl scouts, not for winning a price

Shit for brains.

If you want to stop personal attacks stop making them yourself. I do not apparciate bing talked to by idiots and you count as one. Now fuck off and don't come near me again.--Jirate 19:56, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

User:Irate

Hi. I think an RFC for Irate is in order. Do you agree? Would you certify it? Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 22:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, to both. — Matt Crypto 22:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Writing it now. Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 22:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Written and filed. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irate. Cheers, Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 22:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Some things need doing... Cheers for your support, Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 22:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Irate seems to have no intention to respond to the RFC. Unfortunately, I'm going away for two weeks, so can't take this any further. I think he needs to be banned, and I think, if he won't promise to reform, the ArbCom ought to be involved. Could I leave this in your capable hands? Cheers, Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 11:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, perhaps that is over-egging the pudding slightly. However, with my being away from Wikipedia (sniff sniff), it would be great if you could handle matters. Of course, I doubt the problem will go away over two weeks, and I may be able to check in from time to time. Good luck Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 17:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To get started, I have prepared a page at User:Smoddy/Irate to use for RFAr. If you have anything to add to it, please feel free (this is "explicit permission" btw). Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 18:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FAC comment

Don't worry about it. No offense taken at all. Best, Hydriotaphia 16:33, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting vandalism by 4.143.98.30 on my User page. —ExplorerCDT 03:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PSW FAC

Regarding Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Polish-Soviet_War the bottom line is that I am out of ideas what can be cut out without damaging the article. As a creator (agreed, biased), I feel that all remaining info is essential. Please tell me EXACTLY what sections/parts/etc. you find unimportant enough to be moved to a subarticle? Preferably on FAC page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article has been reduced to 44kb. Would you support it now? Honestly, there is *nothing* left I can cut out anymore... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Irate

WP:RFAR has begun against Irate. violet/riga (t) 13:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Manx (cat) comments reply

Matt, thank you for your suggestions on the Manx cat article. I'm posting my reply to all those who've addressed it seperately to be sure they have a chance to understand as much as possible about me, the Manx breed cat and an invitation to learn more if they wish. I hope you'll find my comments polite and as constructive criticism as that is my intent to everyone I wrote individually.

To The JPS, Peter Isotalo and Matt Crypto who commented about the picture I posted. It's a very sad day when a picture of one of the oldest living Manx breeders known, judging a perfect example of the Manx is not worthy of being posted in this encyclopedia to represent the breed, herself, the breeder and The Cat Fanciers' Association. She's notable enough to have bred and judged registered Manx cats for more than 40 years, bred more than 35 Grand Champion Manx, be shown on the television show "The Animal Planet", written and assisted writing the breed standard for The Cat Fanciers Association (which is the world's largest cat registy), provided articles for magazines and books on the breed ( I could go on and on on her accomplishments with the Manx) yet isn't worthy to be listed on this site, what standards are you going by here? If people truly do not know anything about this breed as has been stated, what basis do they then have to edit and monitor it's content as to what is acceptable and what is not accurate? Makes one wonder if they don't know what is truth and what is not. I would be more than happy to replace the picture in question ( I have better pictures of Barbara judging my Manx that are higher resolution and show more of the cat like you've suggested) however, I don't think this is about another picture. It's about not allowing registered breeders the chance to teach others the truth that any tailless cat can not be considered a Manx cat. I think you should also know, although I was asked to post a new picture it's already been replaced...guess who! Hint: not me! Are you now saying that I should go replace that picture with mine, where does this end? What's the sense of everyone offering their opinions if what they suggest is not given the chance to be followed through? Who's job is it to make sure what's being posted is accurate and to block or stop people from doing as they were not told to do anyway?

As to those who admit they don't know enough about this breed to know what is and isn't correct, now's your chance to learn if you truly wish to. To learn more about the Manx breed cat from someone who has also been a long time breeder for 25 years, has a BS Eng.Phy., MS Ed, is President of the American Manx Club, technical consultant to Karen Commings for Manx Cats: (Complete Pet Owners Manual), (Barons, 1999) and Joanne Mattern for The Manx Cat, (Capstone Press, 2003, as well as being highly respected by Manx breeders and considered an authority on this breed, get in touch with Sherman Ross. His email address is openly displayed on the American Manx Club site. (tahame@juno.com) I'm sure Sherman would be more than happy to speak to anyone about this breed, address their questions and put to rest the MTYH of Manx Syndrome and other genetic stories about this breed that are incorrect. I'm not concerned about letting people know the Manx breed has genetic limitations, I have warnings about it on my website as well. Reputable breeders would never try to hide, cover up or decieve potential owners from the facts. However, I am very passionate about people knowing the "term" Manx Syndrome is just that, a "term". It is what is used by some as a description for illnesses seen by some in the Manx breed cat. However, the illnesses that are covered by the "term" happen in other breeds of animals as well as humans such as spina bifida, incontinence and rectal prolaspe, they're not only seen in the Manx breed. Therefore, those who use it are misrepresenting the "term" and breed. Also, stating "inbreeding causes shortened tails", is not accurate. Sherman tells me if this were true every registered breed of cat would produce some foreshortened tails. When was the last time you saw a bobtailed Persian, Korat, Occicat, etc? Here's where I'll end my comments, I've given those reading this discussion page enough to think over for now, do get in touch with Sherman he's a wonderful human being, loves the Manx breed and is just as passionate about it as I am.

Karello 06:46, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

To save you time, Matt, I've already replied on Talk:Manx (cat). The JPS 08:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kreen

Thanks for the support at Talk:Rear of the year – Kreen (talk · contribs) has gone through loads of articles I've worked on and virtually all his contributions (which started today) have been against me. That includes Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Violetriga. Ahh well, some people! Thanks again. violet/riga (t) 20:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And indeed thanks for the comment at the aforementioned RfC. violet/riga (t) 20:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Open ciphers - is Blowfish the only patent-free cypher or are there others? I notice that open-source implementations of patented ciphers is common. -==SV 01:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Awesome. Maybe Category:Free ciphers would be a good idea to list these. -==SV 01:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zürich to Zurich

Zürich has been nominated on Wikipedia:Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Perhapse you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 10:12, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Replied in Talk:Caesar_cipher

I replied to your reply in Talk:Caesar cipher. I haven't really communicated with other editors like this before, but since you commented on my talk page about your reply, I'm doing the same. :D If this message just takes up space, feel free to delete it. --Ciaran H 15:40, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Earthy colours templates

Hiya Matt, I just saw your comment on Violetriga's templates ideas. You said you didn't like so much vertical height and the colours, and I've done a rendition of her templates which has different colours and less vertical space. Your input and thoughts are welcome! They are at User:Talrias/Templates. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Caesar cipher

I appreciate it. We've kind of just gotten started with the project, and I figured, hey, it's a lot easier to pronounce Caesar then Rijndael. Demi ^T/_C 17:30, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

Reverting

Next time you revert something, please make sure that you revert only the things you actually want to revert. When you reverted the bulleted list on WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia back to a table, you also reverted several changes I made (e.g. for one file, you changed the size/length back to question marks). I've fixed this myself now, but in future, please watch out for these things. Thanks. – Timwi 20:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, that wasn't very considerate of me, sorry about that. My only excuse is that it was first thing in the morning, and sometimes I'm not quite with it at that time of day...I'll try and avoid editing whilst still groggy in future ;-) — Matt Crypto 22:16, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case - final decision

A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to User:Irate. He is to be banned from Wikipedia for three months. Should he return after this time, and the committee receives further complaints of personal attacks, we may apply a personal attack parole for up to one year. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irate#Final decision for further details and the full decision. – sannse (talk) 22:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This might amuse you. Not half an hour after being banned for three months (above), he emailed me calling me a "cunt". Classic. Anyway, cheers for your help in the matter. Smoddy (_t^g_e^c_k) 22:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{{welcome}}

Doing RC patrol, I noticed you attached {{welcome}} to the user talk page of an anonymous IP address. Next time, for those situations, please use {{anon}} instead since it is designed to invite the user to create a new account. Thanks. Zzyzx11 | Talk 00:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Happy patrolling! — Matt Crypto 00:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your block of User:Irate

You applied a 3-month block before your previous 24-hour block expired. I think this may had the effect of causing all blocks to be cleared when the 24 hours expired, since this was the first block... actually, I'm really not sure at all how the software works when there are multiple overlapping or conflicting blocks. Anyway, I applied a block for 89 days just now, presumably redundant. – Curps 04:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My adminship: thanks!

Hi Matt Crypto. Thanks very much for your vote for my RfA. I promise to be prudent, wise, sagacious and totally unilateral in all my admin affairs. I should say that I am very pleased at the number of people who supported me – it's very nice to know I'm making a positive impact. Much happier than all that mess with Irate! Cheers again, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:WikiReaderCryptographyAOTD-Verbose

Hmm? Ahh, well... I don't exactly know. I just gave the {{historical}} tag to all of the collaborations listed as inactive. Sorry to trouble you, as it certainly appears active. I don't know how it got on the "defunct COTWs" page. You should add it to the Template:COTWs if it's active! Carry on. --Dmcdevit 02:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A certain user... (reply →)

... who doesn't need to be mentioned by name, thinks that you are abusing policy. I'm attempting to remain neutral here, but could you please not do things like revert them, when this only adds to the grievance? Hoping this can all be sorted out soon, Alphax ^τεχ 11:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree – that person should be named as I have no idea what you're going on about. violet/riga (t) 12:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John Bradley aka. User:Irate. Anyway, reverting him while he thinks that you are engaging in personal attacks isn't helpful. I'm trying to sort through some things with him via the mailing list, so if anyone dislikes what is being said they'll have hard evidence. Alphax ^τεχ 13:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What reverts did you have in mind Alphax? For example, the revert by Violetriga to Grand National (mentioned by Bradley on the mailing list) was enforcing a temporary injunction by the ArbCom (during his case, the ArbCom ruled that he could only edit his own User pages and the arbitration case). You also say "if anyone dislikes what is being said, they'll have hard evidence." I presume you have seen the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irate/Evidence page? What we don't need is more evidence of this user's bad behaviour. What we do need is for this user is to stop behaving badly (or, less preferably, to leave Wikipedia permanently). —— Matt Crypto 14:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that one; regardless, it could be perceived that a conflict of interest exists. I've seen the evidence page; if anyone dislikes what I say, you'll have evidence. I'm just trying to keep myself accountable - that's part of the reason why I'm using the mailing list, not a WP page or private email. Anyway, from the latest things on the maling list, we might be getting somewhere. Alphax ^τεχ 14:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I wish you success with your discussions with Irate, but I'm afraid I'm pessimistic about your chances :( Regarding accountability, OK, seems I misunderstood you. (Wikipedia also has accountability because it's public and has a history function). Regarding conflict of interest, the ArbCom ruling was pretty clear: Irate cannot reasonably complain about an admin reverting him for violating an ArbCom injunction, regardless of who that admin is. Irate's April 17th spree of edits seemed to be a last minute attempt to get his edits in before the ArbCom banned him -- as they indeed did 8 hours later. — Matt Crypto 14:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As Matt says he was in violation of his injunction and that was a series of reverts I did on him which were part of his ongoing argument with an anon. I agreed with the anon's edits and reinstated them – I was actually defending that (non-)user from Irate. I can't really revert anything he does now anyway – he's not going to be editing for a while! While I agree that you should try to steer clear of any users with whom you have ongoing problems with, but it was not appropriate for him to continue an edit war while banned from editing. violet/riga (t) 18:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guess I should have checked the timestamps more carefully :( Oh well, looks like things are working themselves out. Sorry for bothering you, Alphax ^τεχ 10:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. :) violet/riga (t) 10:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your vote for "Tick ToC"

Transferred from my talk page. I think there's something wrong with yours, but I can't see what yet. Noisy | Talk 16:58, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Matt. To make the vote count easier to see, would you mind moving your vote here for "Tick ToC" from "Contional support" to "Support"? That is assuming your support is still "unconditional" ;-) Thanks. Paul August ☎ 16:41, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Matt and Noisy, Sorry about that. I posted the above accidentaly on Noisy's page but I mean to post it here. And reposted it here below, before I noticed this post uughhhh! Paul August ☎ 17:09, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I will delete "second post". Paul August ☎ 17:12, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, done. — Matt Crypto 18:23, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cricket

Hi. You commented on the move of the cricket portal to cricket. Having moved the whole affair back, I have made my own proposal. Could you come and comment, so that we can get consensus for the best version. Cheers, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Enigma

Hi Matt, started some brandnew pages on Enigma. Take a quick peek, all ideas or comments most welcome. http://users.telenet.be/d.rijmenants/en/enigmasim.htm Dirk 19:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Alan Turing v Enigma

Hi Matt. Saw your name in the Alan Turing history of edits and it occurred to me that you might be able to cast some light on the following:

The statue of Turing in Whitworth Gardens includes the characters:

   IEKYF ROMSI ADXUO KVKZC GUBJ

The story is that this is an Enigma encoding of:

   FOUNDER OF COMPUTER SCIENCE

but,

• the number of characters doesn't seem to match
• it would mean that the U in computer had been enciphered as U and it is said Enigma could not do this

lmno 21:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Fourier transforms in cryptography

Any application to cryptography is very tenous indeed,

Really? I'd have thought discrete Fourier transforms appear prominently in cryptography. Michael Hardy 21:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

They do crop up, yes (the Walsh-Hadamard transform of a boolean function table can reveal lots about its cryptographic properties, for example), but they have very little to do with trigonometry in that problem domain. It'd be a very rare thing indeed for a trigonometric function to feature in a cryptography paper. Crypto maths is really things like probability, information theory, complexity theory, number theory, abstract algebra – to suggest cryptography is an application area for trigonometry would be stretching it. — Matt Crypto 00:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

In the uses of trigonometry article, I intended to include all things for which knowledge of trigonometry would be a prerequisite. Certainly one is normally expected to know trigonometry before studying Fourier series, Fourier integrals, etc. Michael Hardy 00:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

(Clearly my experience is hardly exhaustive, but...) in the uses of the Walsh-Hadamard transform within cryptography I've seen, knowledge of trigonometry is not a prerequisite. — Matt Crypto 00:51, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

my proposal

Your comment on my page is reasonable. But towards the end of the section in question, I do try to explain why – when they say AD and BC do not express a Christian POV – I think they are being hypocrites. Do you think I am misinterpreting what they say, or just that I should express my criticism (because they really do admit that they are expressing a Christian POV) differently? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Irate

Hi, the arbcomm ruling was a three month block, but you only blocked him for two months. RickK 17:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but I reasoned that the ruling was handed down one month before then. — Matt Crypto 20:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Dorabella

Ever thought about seriously trying to crack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorabella_Cipher ?

Not me, I'm afraid – I don't really have the right sort of skills (I can't even do crosswords!) — Matt Crypto 21:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Vote on policy positions at Government of Australia

I note that Skyring has said that he doesn't intend submitting a proposal for the position this article should adopt on the matters in dispute between him and other uses. I think we can all draw the appropriate conclusions from this. At the expiry of the 24-hour period I gave Skyring yesterday to submit a proposal (10.10am AEST), I will announce a vote at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and at Wikipedia:Village pump. Since Skyring has wimped the chance to have his views voted on, the vote will be a straight yes/no on my policy position, which appears below. Amendments or alternative suggestions are of course welcome. I have an open mind on how long the voting period should be and how many votes should be seen as an acceptable participation. I will be posting this notice to the Talk pages of various Users who have participated in this debate. Adam 23:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

My proposed policy position is this:

• That in Government of Australia, and in all other articles dealing with Australia's system of government, it should be stated that:

1. Australia is a constitutional monarchy and a federal parliamentary democracy

2. Australia's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia

3. Under the Constitution, almost all of the Queen's functions are delegated to and exercised by the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative.

• That any edit which states that (a) Australia is a republic, (b) the Governor-General is Australia's head of state, or (c) Australia has more than one head of state, will be reverted, and that such reversions should not be subject to the three-reversions rule.
• Edits which say that named and relevant persons (eg politicians, constitutional lawyers, judges) disagree with the above position, and which quote those persons at reasonable length, are acceptable, provided proper citation is provided and the three factual statements are not removed. Adam 23:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Dorobo

I rewrote the (n)Dorobo article and I moved it to Dorobo, because that seems the most common term (Ndorobo coming close second) after checking out some relevant literature. Kwa heri ya kuonana, – mark ✎ 16:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Heya

Interested in assisting me with Encrypting File System? It's crypto-stub and I noticed it when I was writing the Windows 2000 article. How do you think we should structure this? Incidently, would you be interested in commenting on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Windows 2000/archive1? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:59, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

About the M-209

Hi Matt,

i was discussing the problem of the mysteriouse (unknown) C-48 with John Alexander from Bletchley Park. According to the wiki article it was the factory name of the M-209. I believe you wrote this article? Do you have any info or references on the C-48? Dirk 14:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

btw, check out the first ever real M-209 sim: http://users.telenet.be/d.rijmenants/en/m209sim.htm

Congrats

[1] CryptoDerk 20:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations! Wikipedians get all the girls, like I've always said. silsor 20:13, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Likewise, congratulations. Lunkwill 09:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please add my congratulations to the ever growing pile. Matt 13:01 BST, 22 Jun 2005

Aftermath of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irate

Seeing you actually did the banning Irate based on the ArbCom decision, I thought you might have special interest in this.

On Meta, Irate created the "m:WikiPedia Liberation Front". I informed Angela of it, it was deleted, or RfD'd (I forget exactly). Then, Irate posted "Do you mind burning your own books." on my Meta talk page, and recreated the said page on Meta, with the text "To liberate WikiPedia from the clutches of those who see it as crucial ego support. Obviously this cannot be done in the ful view of the ArbComm or it's running dogs." Aphaia put the page up for deletion, and Irate has began to live up to his name on the RfD.

Your comment on this deletion process would be much appreciated. Sad to see old cases re-emerge. – user:zanimum

*Sigh* – unfortunate. Well, I've voted. After much experience, my advice would be to waste as little time as possible on this guy (beyond providing a robust response where he breaks the rules). — Matt Crypto 21:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He's already attacked all three of us. Surprised? smoddy 21:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not at all ;-) I can't see what he hopes to achieve, though. Maybe he enjoys stirring up trouble? — Matt Crypto 21:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dia figures of ciphers

I'm a contributor to the French version of Wikipedia and I have been using some of your cipher figures. I am wondering if you could also post somewhere the .dia files ? (I have no idea whether it is possible to post them on Wikipedia). I wish to draw the E0 cipher (and other ciphers) using your cool templates. I'm also moving some of your pictures on Commons. Thanks ! 81.62.21.199 09:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) Dake

Sure, I really need to get round to doing this. If you email me, I can drop you a link to a zip of the .dia files. — Matt Crypto 21:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why not upload the .zip file? Then we can all use it. Lunkwill 22:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please upload it on Commons or drop me a mail at : dake.cdx !at! gmail.com Dake 83.77.28.120 28 June 2005 09:28 (UTC)

I did try, but I got ".zip" is not a recommended image file format messages :( — Matt Crypto 28 June 2005 11:26 (UTC)

Thanks for the mail :) Yep, it seems Commons to do not accept binaries (quite logical) or even SVG files (less logicial) :( I converted the Dia files to SVG and uploaded it there : [2] Dake 128.178.84.123 28 June 2005 18:56 (UTC)

Refined Comparison

I can't possibly stumble through all the cypher talk provided on Wikipedia but I was wondering about a simple answer. Which block cypher is proven to be the strongest (counting age, reliability, and hasn't been broken - opinion) and which is the quickest? I only wish there were simple comparison charts between the more popular types of block cyphers. Thanks! --x1987x 02:30, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it'd be nice. It'd be difficult to include information to judge "strongest" and "fastest", though. Regarding speed, different designs have different performance characteristics on different platforms (and even among different implementations on the same platform), and only small sets of ciphers have been benchmarked against each other for a particular platform. "Strongest" is even more fuzzy, as the only hard data are published attacks – anything else strays into original research and/or POV. — Matt Crypto 28 June 2005 11:35 (UTC)

Thanks--x1987x June 29, 2005 16:41 (UTC)

Category:UK Wikipedians

Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. – Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 20:17 (UTC)

Review needed!

Hey Matt Crypto. I have some work for you. I have just finished a rough translation of E0 (cipher) from the fr: article, and I thought you might want to review it. My knowledge of cryptography is next to nil (I have once implemented Playfair as a training exercise for the Intl. Informatics Olympiad, but that's about it), so it probably shows in the translation. To my discharge, the original article was also somewhat confusing; however, I think you should have no problems understanding what is meant, especially because it is your area of expertise. User:Dake is the original author of the fr: article, so you might want to contact him for further, technical questions (I suspect he might be in contact with Vaudenay, who found the best cryptanalysis, according to the article, and is a professor at the same institution Dake studies at). Cheers. Phils 9 July 2005 12:34 (UTC)

I will check it :) I attended Vaudenay's course at EPFL, your first guess was the best :) The translation looks excellent. Dake 18:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Btw, this brings back to my mind that I should draw a nice sketch that describes E0. Dake 18:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, a diagram would be quite helpful here, I think. — Matt Crypto 21:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Oops, sorry Phils, managed to overlook this. Thanks for the translation; I've only had a brief look, but it looks good. I'll try and reread it when I get more time (and when I get ADSL broadband: I find dialup to be quite painful for Wikipedia editing!) — Matt Crypto 21:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello there. I have a quick question. Is there a list of articles which have been deleted, as one of mine seems to have gone and I can't think of any good recent for it being removed? Cheers --[[User:Matt.whitby|-- user:Matt.whitby]] 14:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC) User:Matt.whitby

G20

Nice work on G20 developing nations – the flag format is very funky! — Matt Crypto 14:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I actualy am imroving all G##'s . Thanks. Cat ^chi? 14:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

You may find Group of 77 satisfying :) Cat ^chi? 16:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Sw: administration

Nommed you for sw: admin; on an all-english pageI created. If you could translate some of into Swahili that would rock. +sj + 23:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandal

Look like you continuing you vandlising and book burning.--Jirate 12:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Irate

Hi Matt. Seems our friend is back to his old ways. Do you think we could ask the ArbComm to enforce Remedy 1.1? Cheers, [[smoddy]] 12:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. I'll do that. You may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Matt Crypto, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Smoddy, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Violetriga. Cheers, [[smoddy]] 13:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration request filed against Irate. WP:RFAr#Irate. Cheers, [[smoddy]] 13:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for defending my user page. It's no surprise to see Irate continuing his actions - he just can't help himself. More blocks on their way for him. violet/riga (t) 15:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

RFC

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Matt Crypto

--Jirate 13:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Flags

You cleaned up my attempt of flags in the Template:Signals intelligence agencies, thank you. Just wondering if there is a wikipedia resource where I can learn more about using flags in wikipedia, or where I can get flag names normalised (eg "Image:Flag of Kazakhstan.png" to conform with "Image:Spain flag large.png") Commander Keane 11:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

MI8

Does the article MI8 (note its independece from MI-8) need to be merged with Black Chamber? I'm a little uncertain about the dashes. --Commander Keane 04:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, well-spotted. Yes, it looks like they do need to be merged somehow. One suggestions is we keep the US MI(-)8 stuff at Black chamber, merge in the content from MI8 into Black Chamber, split out the stuff about the British MI-8 into a stub for Radio Security Service, and turn MI-8 into a disambiguation or redirect page. Does that sound workable? I'm not sure what the correct hyphenation is though. — Matt Crypto 10:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that sounds good, but the Radio Security Service stuff should go to MI8 (to comply with other British services like MI5 and MI6).

So, in review:

*MI8 - British WW11 signals

*Radio Security Service - forward to MI8

*Black Chamber - leave as is, but with dab at top of page directing to MI8.

*MI-8 - forward to Black Chamber

If you don't get around to it soon (or don't fee like it) I'll take care of it soon. --Commander Keane 11:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I have done the above, but didn't think a dab page for MI-8 was neccessary.--Commander Keane 01:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Venona

Hopefully the edit war on Venona project is over for now. I would suggest you can remove the dispute tags at the top because all the disputed information now has been moved. Also, I may at some point wish to do some rewriting on Significane etc., but don't expect to expand it beyond a paragraph or two. I agree, the main article Venona project should not be politicized, and will help in the future if someone tries to take it over and do so again. Thanks much, and I look forward to what you're gonna do with the main page. (I'll also probably move much of the reference material too, may take a few days, let me know what you wanna keep. Thanks.) nobs 14:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I may have to ask for your assistance to depoliticize the Venona project article once again. A group of editors are seeking to insert materials attacking the Governments' case against 171 persons. These insertions and citations are may be unfair and unfounded, and should properly be argued on the Significance of Venona article. I propose to all interested editors, the Venona project page itself be declared nuetral of historical and political arguements, and those arguements be directed to the appropriate pages. Thank you. nobs 23:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice

Lookahere. When you've been subjected to half the shyt (check my page; the vandalism you see there is just a taste) that I have on this website, when you've walked in my shoes, then and only then should you ever dare to presume to come to my place and school me on comportment. When I need a lesson on playing nicey-nice to someone's irksome, naive bullcrap, I'll be sure to look you up. I don't do nice. In the meantime, kindly go to hell. *x* deeceevoice 05:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Question on Selectric claim

I was rather stupidly relying on an old memory. Further research has uncovered a Time magazine article dated 20 April, 1987 (see http://www.bugsweeps.com/info/hitech_snooping.html). It asserts that what the KGB monitored was the electrical noise made by the Selectric and includes the quote "American inspectors found bugs in a shipment of typewriters delivered to the Moscow embassy two years ago."

Should I correct my addition or withdraw it?

User:Amalekite

Hi Matt, I've reblocked the above. I don't normally reblock when another admin unblocks (in fact, I don't think I've ever done it), but this case is exceptional. Amalekite is Alex Linder, the owner-operator of Vanguard News Network. He has posted a list of Wikipedians he believes are Jews on the Stormfront website, as well as details of how to edit using open proxies and sockpuppets. It's clear he was trying to cause major disruption, which is why User:HOTR blocked him. The issue has been discussed on the mailing list. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I am not taking any side in this but in the interest of avoiding an edit war and the inevitable 3RR violations that will result in 2 or 3 edits for each of you I urge you two to talk this out instead of just reverting each other. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 07:27, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I take your point, Matt, but I feel you ought to have discussed this with the blocking admin, rather than undoing the block. I would also argue that for a Wikipedian to draw up a list of other editors by their perceived ethnicity, and to post that list on a racist website, is highly provocative, and I don't see how it can be detached from his actions on Wikipedia. He wasn't blocked for being a member of Vanguard News Network or Stormfront, but for his actions in encouraging anti-Semites and racists to target Jewish editors, and for encouraging them to violate policy by creating sockpuppets and using open proxies. I don't see why we should have to wait until the disruption begins before blocking him. He tried to cause massive disruption: that he (appears to have) failed was simply down to the others' lack of response. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Well, perhaps: I did look at his posts on the forum beforehand, and part of what he said was, "if you're going to join in on editing the Mullins article (which I hope you do), follow the rules of the place - no insults or personal attacks, no Jew-bashing (though they so richly deserve it), try to keep a Neutral Point-of-View (NPOV), and stay cool, no matter how hard they push your buttons. Otherwise, you'll blow your lid and they'll just resort to the classic trick of labelling you an "anti-Semite" or a "neo-Nazi" and using that as a pretext for censoring everything you say." People say all sorts of things, and whether they mean it is hard to tell. I think it's best to ignore how people threaten to behave off Wikipedia, and judge how they actually behave on Wikipedia. I guess the worst thing about summarily blocking these people is that it gives them some sort of legitimate complaint that they've been censored or persecuted; it's much better, I would argue, to let them condemn themselves by their own editing, even briefly, so that everyone can see why they are blocked. And yes, perhaps I should have talked with HOTR, but I was a little ticked off; it's probably best I leave this be for a while. — Matt Crypto 08:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No worries, Matt. I can understand why it would tick you off, and you acted for all the right reasons. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

British Tabulating Machine to British Tabulating Machine Company

Matt,

Excellent! Go for it!! I was hoping that somebody would make such an offer. I was going to leave it a week or so, and then have a go myself - but my qualifications are limited to having read Simon Singh's code book a year or so ago and having recently read a biography of Turing. I'll watch out for the article and pitch in if I see anything that I can help with.

--Cje 15:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I like it - I added a category and made a couple of small tweaks. --Cje 06:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Marian Rejewski pic

Yes, I have her permission 100%. She only asked it to be mentioned that the picture is from her private archive. I think it's a great photo, as so far the only pics available so far were from war time from France and England and there was none from the time when he actually has been workin on breaking the code. It has been never published so far, I think it's cool to have it first published on wiki. Sorry if I sound over-enthusiastic, but well, I am :-) --Lysy ^(talk) 17:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, that's pretty exciting: a Wikipedia crypto-history scoop; nice work! I think he looks quite a bit different from the later picture. — Matt Crypto 08:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar. Awarded to Matt Crypto for taking a bold stand on the moral high ground when others simply stood aside.

You've made an unpopular unblock recently. I also disagree with the point of view of the person who was unblocked, but because the original block was made outside of the rules and policies that govern us all, the block was unjust. Because the user being blocked is very far outside the mainstream and has extremely distasteful views, no other administrator has been willing to reverse this injustice. Bigotry against a bigot is no more moral than bigotry in general. You alone among administrators have recognized this. You alone among administrators have been willing to judge Wikipedia users by their contributions and behavior on Wikipedia.

Even though I believe that the blocked user would eventually be banned for misbehavior, it is not justice to preemptively ban users for crimes we think they may commit later.

You've exemplified the quest for the moral high ground in the face of apathy and outright opposition. As a result of your stand for fair and unbiased application of our policies, and your participation in the quest to end prejudice, discrimination and bigotry in all its forms, I offer you this barnstar. Unfocused 21:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Please feel free to move it to your user page. Unfocused 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your supportive comments, and I agree completely with your argument. I can understand why others might wish to ban an individual like this preemptively, or to simply not to intervene – it's difficult to work up any sympathy for someone with such distasteful views. Also, I think some see his comments on the StormFront forum as inciting an attack on Wikipedia, although I don't agree with their interpretation myself, but it would be a stronger argument in favour of banning him than just "he's a Nazi. — Matt Crypto 23:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Swahili

Glad you liked it, it's always great to get feedback - there's still plenty to do though - great to find another east africa enthusiast! Trollderella 00:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Skyscraper

Re the discussion on the Village Pump, and noting that you removed the quote on Skyscraper, I wondered whether you would reconsider. There doesn't seem to be any concensus on whether these are good or bad, and, I for one, and several others, found this one added to the article. I think that, were they to proliferate, or detract from articles, there would be a case for removing them, but an occasional article that breaks the mold, to me, improves the encyclopedia. Please see if you can find it in your heart to reconsider this one, and let an isolated oddity remain. Yours, Trollderella 02:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

What a very reasonable attitude. Let's wait, I guess, and see how the discussion goes. ;) Trollderella 06:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Placing users in danger

Matt, FYI Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Placing_users_in_danger SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:20, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Merge of Tiger-Tree Hash into Hash tree

Hi! I am thinking of merging the Tiger-Tree Hash article into a subsection of Hash tree. I thought it might interest you. (I bet you already got those pages on your watch list but just in case and since you seem to be the most enthusiastic crypto editor and as it seems pretty competent too!) Please respond on the talkpage of Hash tree if you have any comments. --David Göthberg 12:21, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Amalekite and agenda

Hi, it would likely be better to discuss some of these "meta" issues relating to Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy on our User Talk pages, and keep the above page for the debate itself. Honestly, I'm baffled by your criticisms, some of which I know to be totally without foundation (i.e. the ones about motivation and good faith). Can you clarify some of what you have said: 1) You mention (in)sensitivity several times. What exactly do you mean? I admit it's possible, but please be more precise: how have I been insensitive? 2) You mention a "discreditable agenda". Please state clearly what you think the agenda is here. — Matt Crypto 02:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The "agenda" amounts to devaluing from the impact brought by the Hit/Hate List for those targetted by and esp. those listed in it; the so-called "interesting" (to some) sidetracking works to adversely compound that problem, which isn't to say these borader issue should'nt be debated —they should— but as I already mentioned, it's largely a question of timing, topicality, and what is ultimately in the interests of the project and its editors per any given timeframe. As I said, it's upsetting and unpleasent to feel targetted, and I am hopeful that a deeper appreciation for this can be gained on the part of those calling to have the disruptive user unblocked. El_C 02:34, 28 August (UTC)

*baffled* Please be completely clear about this, because I'm struggling on this one. You're saying that our agenda in opposing the block was to devalue the impact of Amalekite's list on those listed in it? Not a side-effect, not something we accidentally did, but our deliberate agenda? Please can you say that one more time, but as clearly as you possibly can, so that I'm not misinterpreting your statements. — Matt Crypto 02:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you remain baffled, but I'm not inclined to get any further into these sort of psychological speculations. As I said, this is what it amounted to; and you should view the word "agenda" carefuly, within the context of my hitherto statements and emphases, and with a respective per person variability, as opposed to a single monolith. Hope that helps. El_C 02:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it doesn't help. You make very strong claims (like "how revolted I have been with your unmistaken agenda, one which seems about as far from goodfaith as is imaginable"), and when challenged, you retreat behind a shield of incomprehensible statements. If you'd cared enough to actually ask me, rather than guessing, I would have told you my agenda was to campaign for an unpopular principle: that Neo-Nazis should be not be banned from Wikipedia out of prejudice, but should be treated like everyone else. If, by arguing for Amalekite, I seemed not to be expressing solidarity with those unfortunates listed in Amalekite's list, then that's regrettable. But the principle which motivates me is the same one out of which I oppose Neo-Nazism. I oppose hatred and prejudice, even against those who hate and are prejudiced themselves. Is that "as far from goodfaith as is imaginable"? — Matt Crypto 03:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is regretable you found my response unhelpful, and I fear we are fast approaching an imass. I do not find myself to have been the one who has retreated in discussing this specific case and the immediate evidence pertaining to it. I feel that this user's misconduct was clear enough and I also feel that you and others have failed to address the specific components relating to this misconduct in a substantive and clear enough way, instead often opting to sidetrack the debate and go on to draw conclusions largely on such an impertinent basis. El_C 03:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

From what I've seen, you're someone who will argue that black is white if the mood takes you[3]. I have no further interest in your comments. — Matt Crypto 09:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Sophistry and doublespeak till the end, so long as you're in charge of the debate. An interesting lesson in reductionism it has been. I will take every effort to avoid further contact with you, starting immediately. El_C 09:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. — Matt Crypto 09:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Uhuh. Please refrain from continuing to address me, though. I really am not interested. Thanks. El_C 09:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Er, no, I will address you whenever I please, particularly on my own talk page. — Matt Crypto 12:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

You deserve a thank you

Thank you for consistently defending the "spirit of Wikipedia" against the recent contentious block of Amalekite.

Thank you for being brave enough to argue against a questionable blocking depsite the unsavoury opinions and unpopularity of the blocked user.

Thank you for being humble enough through all this to apologise when you made a mistake neglecting to discuss the unblock with the blocking admin.

Thank you for consistently being logical and patient in all your posts on this, even in the face of unwarranted and thoughtless personal attacks.

Lisa 01:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Lisa.— Matt Crypto 12:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showpost.php?p=2149013&postcount=50 Thank you!] Etikelama 11:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

To Amalekite/Etikelama: Look, your banning does not indicate that there's a "Jewish cabal" running Wikipedia; that's simply laughable. Even on StormFront, people laughed at you. Are you so blind? The truth is simply that most thinking people strongly oppose Neo-Nazism; they're not Jewish or controlled by Jews. The result: some go to questionable lengths to oppose it, but everyone involved in the debate over your blocking opposes the beliefs you espouse. Your block was ultimately sustained because of the list of users you posted on StormFront. I disagreed, but don't think that you find much sympathy from me. — Matt Crypto 12:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Vinson

Hey Matt, so for each piece of gear under the Vinson family, SCIP family, ANDVT, etc. should I add them each to the list? if so that list will grow rather big. Just wondering since I am still a noob here. --Terry 17:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts are that, at least for the time being, the cipher machines "navbox" can cope with a link to each separate article that we have on cipher machines. There might come a time where we have so many articles that the box becomes ridiculously unwieldy (moreover, I hope that happens!); we might contemplate trimming it at that point, and losing the individual VINSON articles would make sense. I think it's probably OK for the short-term, though. — Matt Crypto 17:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Don Coppersmith

Hello Matt, I know that you often contact cryptography experts for their pictures. Just wanted to tell you that I asked D. Coppersmith (I also asked if he had a picture of H. Feistel) and he doesn't want to see his picture on Wikipedia. No need to send him a mail (which would be answered about 2 months after being sent ;) Regards, Dake 18:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Dake. I did actually email Dr Coppersmith myself a while ago, and got the same response; maybe I should have made a note! — Matt Crypto 08:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

IDEA (cipher) and rounds

Hi, I've reworded it slightly; is it any clearer? — Matt Crypto 08:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is a little clearer, though perhaps an article titled Round (cryptography) would be appropriate to define the term, if it's used outside of IDEA.--Orborde 08:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

User:68.66.96.32

I agree. Do you want the honors of extending this block or must I? FeloniousMonk 10:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Parliament

There are different ways of adding this information, but I don't see that the alternative proposed is better or worse than the way I have chosen to add it. I repeat what I said to [person whose name I forget]: since I am willing to undertake editing over 250 articles, when no-one else has been, I should be left to get on with it. Adam 13:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Adam, I appreciate the effort your putting into this, but that does not give you the exclusive right to determine this question. I believe (and it seems Warofdreams does too) that the way you've been adding this information is inappropriate; that is, a logo and section is overkill for this information. At York, I moved the information to a history subsection; I would suggest that's a better approach, and I would argue that all the articles that you've added this box to need to be changed to that style. — Matt Crypto 14:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Typical Poms - too lazy to do the work themselves, but ready to carp when someone else does it. Ok, I give up then - I wish you and Warofdreams several happy days of reverting 200 articles. It's bedtime here in the colonies so I'll see how far you've got with it tomorrow. Adam 14:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Erm, that's very rude. Look, it's obvious you've spent a lot of time on this, so I can understand how you'd be annoyed if all your effort went to waste. But that doesn't mean your actions cannot be challenged if you've taken the wrong route. Still, there's absolutely no reason to start with the nationality attacks. Since you've given your consent, I will go and revert those articles. — Matt Crypto 14:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

When you get to Great Yarmouth note that I did a general edit on the article as well as add the Unreformed Parliament tag. Adam 14:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing this with Adam Carr and resolving things in such an amiable fashion. Warofdreams 15:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Username changes

Something tells me you won't be getting an answer from you-know-who. That's too bad, really, because it could have a chilling effect on the impacted user and users to come. The good news is that there are several new people up for bureaucratship right now, and it's not too late to know where they stand on certain issues such as this one. Without making a specific reference to the Trollderella discussion, I've raised your question at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Rdsmith4 2 and am interested to learn what his thoughts are on this subject. —RaD Man (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. (I'm not willing to let the matter with you-know-who drop quietly if he won't even bother to give any justification for his actions and decisions.) — Matt Crypto 20:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Fence Sitting

Someday, Matt, someone is going to push you off of the fence you're sitting on. It'll be interesting to see which side you land on. Etikelama 17:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

What fence do you think I'm sitting on? — Matt Crypto 17:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I misjudged you, Matt. I thought you were taking a stand for truth and logic, academic integrity, due process, freedom of speech, and all those other yummy intangibles that used to be the hallmarks of Western civilization. After further reflection upon some of your statements, the only real disagreement between you and the Jayjg/SlimVirgin/etc. gang was one over tactics. You ultimately don't care if certain articles on Wikipedia are biased and full of disinformation, your main concern is simply to maintain the superficial appearance that Wikipedia is the open, pluralistic community it pretends to be. I must conclude that you're not quite the idealist I mistook you for. Were your actions driven by petty egotism? Perhaps it hurt your feelings that SlimVirgin and the gang acted unilaterally, leaving you out of the loop? Whatever the reason, this was clearly just another factional dispute between the dominant WikiClique and their useful idiots. Etikelama 07:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

That's not a fence, mate, that's a rant. It's telling that, when you saw that I objected to your block, I was judged by you to be a noble scholar full of integrity. However, when it turns out that I strongly object to your Neo-Nazi nonsense and strange delusions about cabals, suddenly I'm only a petty egoist...You are very transparent *grin*. The truth is, I don't look for other people's praise to judge my own motivations and integrity, and least of all the praise of a Neo-Nazi who calls for "death to the Jews" and all that. — Matt Crypto 08:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

At what point was it assumed that you were sympathetic to neo-Nazism? Many Wickipedans are likely to assume as much after seeing the great amount of energy you spent defending the right of an alleged neo-Nazi to edit articles here. My only comment in your regards was that you were a man of principle. Do the words "principled" and "neo-Nazi" mean the same thing in your book, mate? Etikelama 09:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Not really, Etikelama, no. I guess you could make the argument that people who think certain races are inferior and should be wiped out are operating according to principles, but only very evil ones. — Matt Crypto 09:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your reference. While I admit that I consider certain races "inferior" (depending on how one defines the word "inferior"), I certainly have no desire to wipe anybody out. I don't recall ever saying that I did, and perhaps more to the point, it was never my intention to use Wikipedia as a soap box for my personal beliefs about race. I try to restrain myself from inserting personal bias when editing articles here, but it seems that editors with a far-left/Marxist/liberal/Jewish take on things make no effort to restrain themselves. Nor do they have to, since to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been banned from Wikipedia for being a "Marxist troll" or anything to that effect. Etikelama 09:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You say you try and "restrain yourself from personal bias when editing articles here." Commendable, but from your contributions list it's not clear that you edit any articles here. If you want to improve Wikipedia, go edit articles and stop bothering me. — Matt Crypto 14:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Geez, you guys take so much flak. Thanks for working so hard at making the pedia worthwhile, Matt! Lunkwill 21:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Cheers Jason, thanks for the encouragement! — Matt Crypto 21:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, these guys give as much flak as they receive. Etikelama 07:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

List of cryptography topics

Hi Matt! I noticed the invisible talk links in the List of cryptography topics so I checked the history and saw it was you who added them. What purpose do they have? I mean the links that look like this:

[[Block cipher]] [[Talk:Block cipher| ]] --

For me that only shows as:

Block cipher --

That is, no link to the talk page. (Which I kind of expect since you have the "|" in the talk link with no word after the "|".)

By the way, you can respond here since I do have this page on my watchlist. (Last time you responded on my talkpage.)

--David Göthberg 11:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a bit of a hack, really. They're there to make sure that, when you click the "Related Changes" link, it shows the changes to the articles' talk pages as well. If they weren't included, you'd only see changes to the article itself. (This is unlike the more sensible behaviour of user watchlists, which track both pages together.) — Matt Crypto 11:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, ok, I understand. Perhaps that should be explained in the intro in that page. (Although when I added some pages I did add such talk links, since I guessed they were there for some purpose.) --David Göthberg 11:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

<includeonly>

You asked on my talk page: I was wondering what the effect of the <includeonly> tag was? I saw you add it to Template:Todo, and was just curious! — Matt Crypto 16:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The effect is that stuff inside the tag is only displayed when the template is transcluded. So whilst there is a Category in the wikicode for {{Todo}}, the template itself does not appear in that Category. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, that's quite useful. Thanks for the explanation. — Matt Crypto 16:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

There's also a <noinclude>, which applies only to the template itself and not to the pages it appears in, which is useful for adding interwiki links to corresponding templates on other wikipedias. – Curps 16:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I discovered there's a help entry on it on meta: it hasn't made it here. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Cfd

Hi. I saw the edit you made on Lordship salvation. Good work! If you have a second, please vote on this: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_29#Category:User_la-N. It was overturned last time because of some jokers. --Flex 15:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

As of

Hi, I was wondering why you were taking away the "As of" links? They're useful to keep track of information for which there is a reasonable possibility of it becoming outdated. — Matt Crypto 14:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I didn't realise that. It's... Thelb4! 16:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I hope you wouldn't mind if I restored the links? (Or you could do so yourself?) — Matt Crypto 20:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'll do it. It's... Thelb4! 20:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Newbie

Thanks for helping me on that link situation. I'll have a read through the guidelines when there's a little extra room in my pea brain. Is there any chance you could put the Leigh Bowery pic back on though? Maybe smaller but I think he does need a visual. Duvel

Mistake in DES key schedule image

Hello Matt, I appreciate the huge amount of work you do on crypto articles, and elsewhere. I enjoy reading your work very much. I noticed what I think is a small mistake in an image you produced, namely the DES key schedule image. DES keys are 56 bits, not 64 bits as it says on that image. (Block sizes are 64b, perhaps that's what you confused it with.) Perhaps you still have the source of the image and can change it? Mark

Hi Mark, thanks for your kind comments, but, more importantly, for double-checking the work here (Linus's law, and all that). The size of the DES key is normally quoted as 56 bits. That's the most useful measure, because it's the effective key size; however, the algorithm for the key-schedule actually takes a 64-bit input. For some reason still not satisfactorily explained, the DES key-schedule drops every 8th bit from the 64-bit key in the first permutation (PC-1) (have a close look at the diagram for DES_supplementary_material#Permuted_choice_1_.28PC-1.29; input values 8, 16, 24...etc are simply dropped). The remaining 56-bits are processed by the key schedule to produce sixteen 48-bit sub-keys. The designers claimed, rather weakly some think, that these bits were used for parity check purposes. Skeptics have argued that it was a sneaky way to lower the key-size a bit so that the NSA would have an easier time brute-forcing it.

Having said that, if you were confused by the diagram, that suggests the diagram would be better off if it noted the size of the various values as they move through the algorithm. The source is about somewhere, I might be able to fix it soon. — Matt Crypto 18:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Matt, wow, I didn't know that. Thanks for telling me! I'd probably still argue that the diagram should say 56b since the algo *really* takes 56b and only pretends to take 64b. But obviously one could argue the contrary just as easily! – Mark

Probably the best thing would be to note the size before and after PC-1 on the diagram; that would be the most accurate and informative, since the official documents have the key-schedule accept a 64-bit input. — Matt Crypto 19:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

(By the way I notice you copied my comment and your answer to my (temporary-IP) user page, which is where I put my acknowledgment of your answer. It is not clear to me whether I should edit your user page or mine. Apologies if I've done the wrong thing. - Mark)

Oh, it's fine either way. I sometimes like to copy conversations between two pages so that there's a full record, and also so that the other person gets the "You've got new messages" notice, but people have different styles, and logged-in users have watchlists. — Matt Crypto 19:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for those explanations, Matt. --Mark

moved from userpage

Hey! If Certified Server Validation needs cleanup, as you insist, please explain why. You provided no explanation, and the page has been cleaned up, IMO. (The links that marking something for cleanup add are not doing the trick.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elvey (talk • contribs) 20:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Erm, surely it's sufficiently obvious that the page needs cleanup without explanation? — Matt Crypto 22:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Erm... Surely it's obvious that some explanation is being requested. Surely it's obvious that specific questions have been asked of reviewers. See the page history comments. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_%28electronic%29#Topics_to_Cover. Should Certified Server Validation be deleted in favor of moving (some of) its content to a new Spam Solutions page or the existing Email authentication page?

OK, I've gone and cleaned up the article myself, since that takes about as much time as would explaining the problems with it. — Matt Crypto 16:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. We can delete this section now, IMO.

From user page

I'll put them here so they don't get lost:

I, Haukur, hereby award Matt Crypto The Barnstar of Tolerance in recognition of his efforts, beyond the call of duty, to promote tolerance and civility in our community.

File:Thinker.png

TPH barnthinker in recognition of your gallant efforts on behalf of toilet paper holders everywhere.

— Matt Crypto 00:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles we've both edited

I do admire your contributions, but wonder why you don't mention these articles on your user page.
Taxwoman 22:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't usually keep a note of articles that I've edited (although I do keep a list of non-crypto articles that I've started). And editing lots of articles on BDSM isn't my usual Wikipedia habit ;-) — Matt Crypto 00:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

A big thank you for your help and support, I look forward to meeting you in more productive contexts - I am, in fact, a former resident of York - how about some photos of the bars and walls if you're there right now? I'd love to do some more work on the architecture and history! Yours, Trollderella 23:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice to have you back! I have a digital camera, and, while I'm not much of a photographer, I'll try and take a few snaps. — Matt Crypto 05:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)