User talk:Matt Crypto/archive1

Greets

Hi Matt,

You've been doing some excellent work over the last couple of days on the crypto related articles. Welcome to Wikipedia! -- Arvindn 15:13, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Arvindn! Do you do much work on the crypto articles yourself? Nice to meet you anyway. (P.S. I've sent you a somewhat garbled email about your Javascript Email Obfuscator, sorry about that)...Matt 17:10, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Great work on block cipher! Lunkwill 07:30, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Alan Turing

Excellent work over at Alan Turing. Keep it up. →Raul654 06:01, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

Cheers! BTW, does the → in your signature mean anything? Matt 06:35, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nothing special about the right arrow - I just wanted something to differentiate my sig from other people. Others (*cough*Cyp*cough*) have had some sigs that were over the top, so I wanted to keep it subtle. →Raul654 06:41, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

I see ;-) Can you set a different signature for ~~~~, or do you have to manually insert each time? Matt 06:51, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's an option in your preferences. Log in to Wikipedia, and go to the top right. There should be a link there. →Raul654 07:13, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

---

Matt, Have just stumbled on your work on TEA and XTEA. Superb! Congratulations. Let's see if we can get all the crypto related articles to this standard of quality. ww 16:08, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Likewise Lucifer. ww

And ,see my note at Talk:List of crypto... ww 15:43, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

CRYPTREC

Matt, On the CRYPTREC article, thanks for the comments on my Talk page. Those of us who don't read Japanese do have some problems with the Web site since much of the material (slide presentations, etc) are in Japanese. It is indeed hard to follow.

As best I can make out, the project is ongoing. They seem to expect to produce approximately yearly reports. It being (apparently) the official government project on these issues (akin to CSEG in the UK or one division of NIST in the US), there is I think a more or less permanent committment. Here and there there are statements about the necessity for keeping on top of new developments (new attacks, new mathematics, ...) which imply a sensible and responsible approach to recommending (approving, endorsing, ...) crypto algorithms/protocols/etc., including extension in time.

I, on the other hand, remain uncertain whether NESSIE is likewise. As nearly as I can tell most of their stuff is output in English (of which I can, more or less, make sense) and I've trolled through most (all?) of it, but I still can't tell. I haven't sent mail to them asking as I haven't wanted to contribute to their overhead load. The RIPE project (NESSIE's predecessor involving many of the same personnel) was self limiting. Will NESSIE terminate, has it already done so? Can you enlighten me? ww 17:46, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think NESSIE's done, e.g. [1] talks about finalists and winners (like in AES process), and [2] gives a clear time schedule that ended March 2003. I can't find anything similar at CRYPTREC, but I've just assumed that it was hidden away somewhere in Japanese... — Matt 18:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Matt, Two extended sessions at CRYPTREC have produced (finally!) something that's actually useful. At least as a first pass. There is more to be done, but I'm CRYPTREC'd. I'm going to take a break from it for a few days. Take a look if you would and put together some improvement ideas if you have time. I've not come up with a better way to include the qualifications from CRYTPREC about this or that algorithm. I want to avoid footnotes on the grounds that nobody ever looks at them. Ideas? ww 19:59, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Cryptography and Security

Matt, Nope. Haven't heard about the Ency of Cryp and Sec. It's a reputable technical publisher (published some of Galileo's stuff, if memory serves) and if the contributors are good enough (and the editing is good enough -- an vital but very different matter) it might be expected to be worth the reading. Thanks for the heads up.

I've left a message at T:padding for you. The dropped penny may be important vis a vis our interaction. I'd be interested in hearing your response.

ww 20:38, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your message, as well as your good edits and creations on the subject of crypto. I feel like I am slacking a bit now, but maybe when I get done with my thesis I'll have more time to dedicate to the mathematical side of things. CryptoDerk 23:13, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

oops

Matt,

Oops on --. Will try to remember.

ww 23:44, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Admin Nomination

Hello, I would appreciate your help by earning your vote as an admin. I have been here about 5 months now and have been nominated. I have made many contributions and have improved on my editing and behavior. I take this seriously, that is why I have gotten into it with Anthony so much. You can look at my user page yourself and see my contribtions. I would appreciate a vote in the yes column if you agree. Again, thanks for your time and help. ChrisDJackson 02:34, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

edit conflict, & thanks

Matt,

First off, thanks for chiming in on the admin nomination business. Given our persistent divergence on stylistic points (though I must agree it's been pleasantly civil, though unresolved, unlike some I;ve seen traces of), I wouldn't have expected so warm an endorsement. Thanks again.

I know about the inuse flag, and thanks for suggesting it, but having concentrated on crypto and similarly other obscure stuff, I've only encountered one or two instances. Mostly at Attack on Pearl Harbor. We, on the other hand, have been tripping all over each other like puppies. I may have to go to it.

I trust I've begun to get my -- and my alphabetics better in line of late? I will suggest, however, that names ought to be in alphabetical places at list....Discussion moved to Talk:List of cryptography topics.

ww 16:24, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

formatting

Matt, I notice that we are tripping over each other again. Am I doing something against the regs in the formatting of see also. You have been busily correcting them after me. If they are wrong to begin with, perhaps I could get it right the first time and save you the trouble? What's the rule, or is this a convention for crypto stuff that you've adopted?

ww 17:22, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

For Hagelin, I removed the "See also" because the section is apparently meant for additional topics not yet referenced in the text. I don't think there's a problem with your formatting; there are a couple of acceptable styles for WP - have a quick look at the Manual of Style. I tend to reflexively edit to the longer version whenever there's also an "External links" section, but that's just my whim, I think. — Matt 17:38, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alright. I won't worry about it further. ww 17:40, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Discussion with ww over "ought to"-style

(Moved from Talk:CRYPTREC)

Matt, Not sure why you deleted sentence recommending consultation. Can you say? ww 19:33, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Simply — I don't think Wikipedia articles should include recommendations. — Matt 19:38, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Matt, Ahhh.. Now some things become clear. We should discuss this, I think. Perhaps off line to avoid clogging talk pages? Since we two are the most active in the crypto corner, we should have an agreed policy else there will be repeated re-edits whose only point will be time waste.

You can send Wiki email to me as I have provided an email address. If that's acceptable. ww 19:44, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy to host the discussion on my talk area, if you like; my thesis is that, since Wikipedia seeks to collect and report facts, articles should describe facts, and not tell the reader what they "ought" to do. The latter (prescriptive) is a textbook style; the former (descriptive) is an encyclopedia style. I appreciate that you are motivated by a concern for being as helpful to the reader as possible, but I think we can be more subtle about how we do this. Consider this quote about NPOV and opinions about creative works:

Characterizing opinions of people's work

A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia; we might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history. But it is important indeed how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. For instance, that Shakespeare is one of the greatest authors of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. Notice, determining how some artist or work has been received publicly or critically might require research; but that reception, unlike the idiosyncratic opinion of the Wikipedia article writer, is an opinion that really matters.

— Matt 21:09, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Matt, You will find a thread lossage response to the reply you didn't make at Talk:Certificate Revocation List. It's hereby incorporated by reference and incoherence.

I recognize this concern on the part of WP 'standards', but argue that it doesn't apply in this case. I am not suggesting that you or I or anyone should endorse this or that algorithm over all others -- or protocols or books. That's not my position. It is my position that readers are disserved if a salient, nay, dominant fact of life in crypto is not made clear to them as it becomes possible to do so. This is not POV, unless one argues that facts of life are somehow a particular viewpoint. One does not disparage any product, any crypto technique review committee, or any algortihm/protocol/system design/... by noting there are tricky bits in crypto about which users should take especial care lest they get into trouble.

It is also, in my view, not POV to note that one's data is subject to attack by assorted miscreants (or corporations in the US where the Wild West of legend has returned in the electronic data arena). Jet Blue airlines has recently released to the Defense Department the account details of some hundreds of thousands of their customers. It is describable reality which those in the (assorted) 'businesses' would characterize, and do, as no problem. Only ignorance, which WP surely should not support, could maintain a state of public acquiesence in this.

Public education should include something on this, and WP is an educative medium. Not only the data exploiters' position should be, by silence in appropriate places in WP, let stand in the 'marketplace of knowledge'.

It is certainly true that this fact of crypto and data life has policy implications, but I would oppose including policy recommendations in WP. That I find anyone knowing the facts who doesn't reach certain policy conclusions to be numb in a significant sense isn't very relevant.

I agree that we should be subtle, but not so subtle as to leave only the data collection interception folks' position the only one on the field. Silence in this case is POV, in my view.

As for taking it to your talk page (or mine) if you don't want to take it off line to email, that's fine with me. Since you have mastered more of WP internals than I have in the month or so you've been editing, I suggest it be yours, unless you want to bring me up to speed in that area of WP operations.

Enough for now.

ww 16:40, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your aims, but one problem I have with an "ought" statement is that they tend not to be easily verifiable facts. Alternatively, a strong presentation of "is" facts will usually suffice to give a reader the gist of what they "ought" to do anyway. If not, an "ought" statement from a cryptographic expert might be quoted. (See also Is-ought problem). — Matt 17:46, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Matt, :! I don't think we have an instance of Hume's problem here. I'll come back when I have more time and will add to this. ww 18:46, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC) Back now. Readers ought not to be told what action to take about this or that problem, certainly, but they should be told about the problem, surely. I don't think -- but have impressions both ways -- that we disagree about this. Am I correct?

What we disagree about, it seems is where and when to (and quite how) to make such information available. Is this about right?

If so, it wouldn't seem to be a Humeian problem of prescription v description. ww 18:56, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi Matt and Ww,

While I'm obviously not as active as either of you in crypto, I see you're having the same old, same old discussion once again, and so I thought I'd get a word in.

What I feel is that the content of the warnings is by-and-large ok as long as it is not worded that way. To use an example I've used before, rather than saying "If you want to work in crypto you'd better watch out for the NSA!!!", you can say "prominent cryptographer Adi Shamir has revealed that his early work in cryptography led to threats to his person by certain U.S government agencies", achieving largely the same effect. If the reader gets the message, that's fine; if not, its not our problem.

OK, it's essentially the wordings that I have concerns with. I don't think we should have phrasing that plainly says that a user X should do Y; I'd prefer either a factual example (as you suggest), or a quote from someone. — Matt 17:59, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I feel that if at all there is a compromise to be reached then it has to be something like this, so I urge you to consider it.

More concretely,

• there are some articles where we want a mathematical exposition. WW, don't go adding warnings to those articles.
• there are others that more related to cryptosystems. Matt, lots of warnings is fine in these articles, as long as you make sure they are worded objectively, in an encyclopedic rather than textbook manner.
• for articles that fall in between these two cases, such as the main cryptography article, adopt a middle ground. Cut down on the length of warnings and also phrase them objectively.

I'm sorry I haven't read all that you guys have had to say on this issue, or even the entirety of the discussion on this page (sorry... no time), so I might have missed something, or a lot.

Thanks for your comments (and yes, there's a lot of discussion!); it's good to have some other remarks. Your compromise suggestion here seems to chiefly be about the volume of warnings (and looks to be a sensible guideline to me), but (I think!) we were mainly disagreeing over the style of saying what "ought" to be, or what's "obligatory", and so forth. — Matt 18:09, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

On a vaguely related note, please see my comment on talk:password. Thanks. Arvindn 17:43, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Arvindn and Matt, We were (asymptotically) approaching some such position in our discussions of some time ago (along with much else). What you outline is sensible in my view, and acceptable to me in my attempt to act on behalf of Our Reader. This is clearer than anything we had reached back when and is therefore progress in my view. Thanks. ww 18:46, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

on adding new articles to List of C and Topics in C

Matt, I'd be willing to add stuff, and have done so once or twice, but have been generally hesitant as your classification criteria are unclear and I didn't want to stumble over them with other things left hanging. eg, cleartext, FISH v Fish, cryto system or cryptosystem, alpha ordering of names, IV at padding, the cryptography article itself, ...

If you can get me in sync with your plans, criteria, and so on, I'll be glad to do the entry myself. And maybe even get it right (you know the --, and such).

ww 15:48, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, the List of cryptography topics page lists every page with its current location, not a redirect — it's "canonical name" or whatever term. So, basically, I propose that we add every page that's not a redirect, whether its title (or existence) is controversial or not, to the list; that way editors can track all the changes to crypto without having to rely (necessarily) on their watchlists, even to pages with questions remaining about their exact title.

Whenever a page gets moved or turned into a redirect, hopefully the list will be updated too, but that's not quite so important — I'm happy to maintain that part. It's just hard to notice new pages added without tracking "New Pages" or laboriously keeping tabs on other editor's "User Contributions". — Matt 16:11, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Matt, I'm not sure I've got this. Purple is a redirect to the (misnamed) purple code, but we shouldn't list the redirect? Have I got this right?

Yep; the List of cryptography topics is just to describe what's currently "out there", and not any kind of comment or endorsement of it. (Of course, in a reader-targeted list, like Topics in cryptography, it should be whatever name / redirect is most helpful to the reader). If you really wanted a list of redirects as well one could, in theory, use the current list — and a moderate amount of technical wrangling — to automatically generate them. — Matt 21:55, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Matt, Wouldn't what's out there include redirect pages? Some will be sensible, others (like 'magic cryptography') either blunders or awkward, but in either case, should not all be included? I only dimly sense the consequences of this and am groping in the dark really. You're likely to have thought more on this. ww 14:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Such as...User:Matt_Crypto/Crypto_redirects — Matt 00:57, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Matt, More on this under separate rubric below. ww

(Actually getting purple code renamed has been on my 'backburner irritation and do something about' list for a while. Any thoughts?)

We could move it to PURPLE?. Some writers capitalise it, e.g. Bauer's "Decrypted Secrets". — Matt 21:55, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Matt, No. The issue I had in mind is that it's not a code. Should be named Purple (cypher) with whatever redirects as exist changed to reflect. this has stuck me as so much effort that I've kept the whole thing far on the backburner. Ticks me off, though, every time I see it. ww 14:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I doubt it since I can see that some topics are best handled as redirects. For instance, I noticed that there was no article 'foo', but there was an article on 'metasyntactic variable'. NO ONE is going to go looking for that article unless they already know about foo and bar and ..., so for the reader baffled by this foo business, I started the page. It's not much and refers to metasysyntactic variable, but it serves the not already_aware_reader. And evoked a prompt let's merge this msg on the page! So I would think a list might include both 'foo' (even if a redirect) and 'metasyntactic variable'. Do you see my uncertainty here? I can't think of an example in the crypto corner though.

I think I understand what you're trying to say here, but, again, List of cryptography topics isn't meant to be any kind of glossary or index for the reader. We have Topics in cryptography and the "Find" box for that. — Matt 21:55, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Matt, I understand the point about not for the average reader. But, see above for my 'groping around' comment for a reply to the rest of yours. ww

Just thought of one. Should we have entries for Alice and Bob, though perhaps not for 'anyone' else save perhaps Mallory, even though the articles (now nonexistent) are actually redirects to characters in...?

Let's we two agree on this one before either of us goes off and does something. I think we need the practice.

ww 19:03, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'm be willing to discuss this above stuff, but I see it as being entirely different topic from the "list" thing we've been discussing; I thought we'd better make sure we've got the latter sorted first! — Matt 21:55, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Matt, Good. Agreed. This example is hardly of earthshking importance, but can serve, I think for deciding the policy. Which I think is what you're suggesting here. ww 14:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

article view count page

Matt, I didn't know that could be done! Unless I've missed something, the 'technical wrangling bit' is most impressive! I've noted (elsewhere) that you've learned more about Wiki innards in around a month than I have the entire time I've been here. Most impressive, and perhaps useful.

In case you weren't aware, article counts are at http://wikimedia.org/stats/en.wikipedia.org/url_200403.html Arvindn 18:03, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Arvindn, I wasn't aware, and I've just found an anonymous edit (at Enigma) which puts my first known activity here 15 Dec 01. And 'that' makes my unawareness (of this and other things) even more chagrining. ww 18:27, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yep, and it's quite amusing to see just how popular Wikipedia's sexual content is...note, though, that there the counts for an article exclude those from its redirects (I think). The "crypto counts" are aggregated, but the difference is usually minor. — Matt 18:22, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hadn't noticed that either. sigh... ww 18:27, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not long back, goatse.cx was the most visited non-special article! With the tragic demise of that charming website, the article has fallen in popularity as well. Still, seven dirty words is not an entirely unworthy successor to the crown ;^) Arvindn 18:35, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Or any of this ..... ww 18:27, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Now that we can see that no one else except we two is reading anything... our problem becomes catching folks' attention. I'm thinking about streaking across the main page periodically, or perhaps staging a sit in. What do you think?

I think I'm going to take to squinting at cryptography out of the corner of my eye in future, just in case...— Matt 16:48, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I thought Ww meant the wikipedia main page. Its just cryptography? Then I'll just avoid that page :)

Thanks to you both, the interest in crypto will decrease still further. I suspect you would both advise against?? ww

Fantastic info. Clearly, some of my expectations about which stuff is being read were well off the mark. I'll have to ponder this to see what result it should have for my editing. Perhaps we should try to get one or more articles featured?

Yes, there were a few surprises for me too; I guess it does help to know what is worth spending large amounts of time polishing. For featuring, how about Enigma? — Matt 16:48, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Matt, Working on it. jwr's invited comment in Talk got me off the dime a bit in re that. Wait until I get a bit further on in the rework.

I'm still considering your attractive bait in re bombe. Perhaps you can entice me further? ww 18:27, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What is the wrangling involved? Is it regularly repeatable? This could be a very useful tool if we can figure out the informational content for policy in the crypto corner. Very impressive! Thanks for the wrangling.

A bit of hacky one-off Python / shell / Emacs automation; next time I can make it a little more repeatable, but it's dependent on infrequently posted Wikipedia stats. — Matt 16:48, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yay for python! How about

        import string
        a=open("crypto.list").readlines()
        for l in open("url_200403.html"):
            title = l.split("/wiki/")[-1]
            if title in a: print "%s\t%s" % (l.split()[0], title)

although this doesn't add up redirect counts. Arvindn 18:58, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Matt, Suspected it was something like that. Well done! Arvindn, Second the python praise. ww 18:27, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And thanks for the congrats. We'll see if, like editing did, this turns into something I didn't intend. ww 14:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikiproject crypto

Matt, YATIHN. Sounds good to me, and it will provide a discussion arena for broader topics of policy in crypto corner. My only thought prior to this was the sort of separate page Arvindn created for our now OBE discussion. Or perhaps the new wikibbs. How about you, Arvindn? What do yo think about a wikiproject?

Again, you've found someThing I Hadn't Noticed. I'm not sure how to go about starting it and all, but I'm sure you and Arvindn can dope that out without help from me. Obviously, I never look up from editing! ww 18:27, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

WikiMagic

So, I might need to rephrase that... What I meant with as little exposure as possible is that I wouldn't like to expose 'the secret' for every single trick in the WikiPedia. If someone is really interested I feel they should be helped with finding stuff out on their own instead of just being told. I'm not opposed to some secrets being revealed. I'm just saying 'we' -whoever we is- should be selective in what we tell. (As semi-professional I'm protective over the art).

OK, though, as a "test case", what would you do if a contributor put in secrets to tricks that might seem to be "too revealing"? Would you advocate removing the secret? (Presuming the "secrets" were otherwise verifiable, of course...).

Hope that was clear :) If you have any suggestions on how to find more magicians on WikiPedia, please let me know. -- MGM 19:22, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe you could scan the edit histories for contributors who've added more than just typo fixes, and drop them a line on their talk pages?

P.S. How did you end up on my WikiMagic page anyway?

Wikipedia:Announcements. By the way, I've been hacking up a proposal for a Wikiproject Cryptography that's inspired by your WikiMagic page, thanks! — Matt 19:52, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

apologies

Matt, It appears that a digraph substitution cypher (or plain ignorance) has inhabited my fingers. I refer to the multiple edits you've made correcting del to dle. If you'd told me (or I'd noticed!), I would have been glad (well embarrassed) to correct them myself. I think it's the neuropathy myslef... Thanks. ww 15:09, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

sha-1 q?

could you talk about slideability and updateability as applied to Sha1 or maybe just Message_digests in general Hfastedge 21:39, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what "slideability" and "updateability" are, and Google doesn't seem to be of much help; where did you encounter these terms? — Matt 10:31, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Well for updateability, i see an update func in python's shamodule.c User:Hfastedge/sha1code . and someone said that slideability lets you take some sum from x[a:b] (maybe not something designed as sha1), and easily get the sum for x[a+1:b+1] AND since i suck at groking C code , im wondering if all this update is doing is going from the sha1 for x[a:b] and updating to x[a:b+N] dunno. all a mess to me. just curopis Hfastedge 21:09, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Re: Prospero Alpini

Hey, Matt. I saw that you reverted my entry on Prospero Alpini earlier today. I know it seems kind of outlandish, but that entry is based on interdisciplinary research we've been doing here at Brown University. For the past year, I've been supervising a number of undergraduates concentrating in History, Queer Theory, and Latin who are pouring over manuscripts from the Renaissance period. In particular, we've come across several codices (De Amatoria Virili and Remedia Incesti Amoris, as I mentioned in the entry) which are really significant if they're authentic (and they appear to be). It seems like this relatively obscure figure in botany may be one of the earliest sexual theorists!

Anyway, I know the Wikipedia gets hit with a lot of vandalism (most of it relating in some way to homosexuality), so I just thought I'd clear the air. We're asking several outside professors to come in and verify the authenticity of the documents, so, if it turns out that they're just really good fakes, I'll revert the entry myself.

Thanks! Gillo

Regarding your reply: that's entirely understandable. Everyone here at Brown has the 128.148.* prefix on their IP address. In fact, I'm fairly sure that the spurious revision that you mentioned ("Gaykin") was the work of a friend of mine who initially linked me to the Wikipedia. Sorry for the inconvenience.

I'm not sure if there's any existing research on the subject available online; frankly, there's barely any in print. Most of our work is based entirely on primary source material in the collection of the University. The manuscripts which I mentioned in the article were a small part of a donation from the Getty Trust that also consisted of a number of texts related to the sciences. Somehow the Classics department didn't get around to translating them until last year; apparently, they don't have any sense of urgency regarding texts that are only a mere 400 years old.

Anyway, the point of all this is that almost nothing has been published on Prospero Alpini's interests outside of botany, which is an oversight I intend to rectify when I've completed the corresponding chapter of my thesis. It will definitely be available online, and I'll make sure to post a link here if you're interested. We're also trying to put together a web site about the project, where we'll post the text and images of the manuscripts. I'll keep you posted. Gillo

your PGP comment

Matt, Your reluctant oppostion to PGP as featured concerned several styple points as I understand it. Will you address them, should I, jon, or ...? Since this is now a 'public' issue, it would be quickest if you were to make those changes you feel necessary.

The following may help. l'affaire Z is the criminal investigation by US Customs of Z for violation of US munitions export regulations. It was launched as a result of a patent licensing complaint against PGP filed with Customs (they enforce patent and trademark stuff in re import/export). The awkward sent you quote was mine and was deliberately so, to avoid eye glaze by the reader. It is the topic sentence of that paragraph as I recall.

If there's anything else I can do to help, don't hesitate to ask. I'm sure jon will be willing to do so as well, but of course can't speak for him directly. ww 18:15, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Matt, I remain uncertain how you wish to handle this. Should I go and attempt to edit to meet your objections? Or not? ww 19:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Matt, Between the edits Isomorphic and I made on the 19th, and yours earlier, it looks as though all the concerns you had have been addressed. Is this so? If not..., more needs to be done. On the other hand, if so, it would appear that there remain no objections to the article going on the FA list. I take it that you'd be willing to 'revise and extend' your comment to suit? Thanks, ww 13:59, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Erk, sorry, but I'm afraid I still think there's need for improvement in this article; a few things pop to mind as examples (==PGP as an Internet standard== is an entire section that consists of just three sentences; the article could be helped by some with overview information -- something like a timeline of PGP, or a table of versions -- to help make the detail more accessible; I think someone else mentioned screen shots.) I'll try and commit some time to editing it (though I'm going to be away this weekend), but I think it needs a reasonable amount of work still. — Matt 11:00, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

subheading caps

Thanks for the heads up about the 'standard'. It's dumb and I'll probably leave a note somewhere about it, but I'll go along (gritttted teeth). ww 13:35, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Politeness

Thank you! That made my morning. Hope to see you around elsewhere. Yours, Meelar 12:47, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Virgil Exner

Thanks so much for your suggestions re: Virgil Exner - I've expanded the section on the "Forward Look." What I was trying to get across was the difference between the cars of 1947, 1949, 1951, and Exner's 1958 1957 & 58] models, such as the one displayed on the page. It was a rather drastic change, but hard to put into words :) I also haven't really talked about his long-lerm effect on the design industry, but I really don't know much about this topic. Exner piqued my interest just enough for me to do all this research on something I know nothing about, which is why I feel it needs a lot of peer review.

Again, thanks! -PlatinumX 07:26, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lock and auto diagrams

Thanks for the compliments on the lock and auto diagrams. Since I created all of them, the licensing status is GFDL. Nice diagrams on your user page too, by the way! I actually sort of understand them, since I took a course on cryptography a while back. -- Wapcaplet 21:22, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to stick a GFDL notice on my diagrams. Many of them were uploaded before we had a nice mechanism for adding such a notice, so I sort of just relied on the assumption that unless otherwise stated, all submitted content is GFDL. I've had a couple questions about their licensing, though, so it's probably a good idea to do that now... I think it'd be fun to model an Enigma machine, provided I can find some good diagrams to work from, but I suspect that the workings of that might be better illustrated with this kind of diagram; I am not sure what a 3D representation would add to that. Any suggestions? -- Wapcaplet 23:22, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

re: Featured article candidate Fanny Blankers-Koen

Matt, thanks for your note on Fanny Blankers-Koen at the featured article candidates page. I think I've now eliminated all problems with past/present tense ; I also posted a reply to your other remark. Could you take another look at it? Thanks, Jeronimo 12:49, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

rply to mc

Matt, On my talk page, under your comment. ww 16:50, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for WikiProject Crypto invite

Matt, thanks for telling me about WikiProject Cryptography; I never knew it existed, unbelievably enough. I've joined it and I've started work. Thanks!

Thanks for WikiProject Crypto invite

Matt, thanks for telling me about WikiProject Cryptography; I never knew it existed, unbelievably enough. I've joined it and I've started work. Thanks! --Decrypt3 19:53, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

confusion about confusion

Hello,

this is one of my first visits on Wikipedia, and if my editing experience is very scarce yet, I duly apologize.

OK, now to the discussion: I have recently been editing the article "confusion and diffusion" because I became aware of a statement in the article which simply is not true in my opinion.

Unfortunately my changes have been un-done so I wanted to take a chance to argue in favour of what I think is correct.

The point is that confusion and diffusion are -- at least in some lecture notes and books -- explained just in a self-respective way: confusing.

But if you happen to have read Shannon's original paper, which should be taken as the origin of any citations, the terms are made rather clear:

There are two "inputs" which lead to a ciphertext. One is the plaintext, the other one is the key. Diffusion leads to an elimination of a statistical relation between changes in single plaintext bits and changes in single ciphertext bits. If you change a plaintext bits, a cipher with good diffusion should lead to a 50 pc chance for _any_ ciphertext bit to change.

Confusion, on the other hand, does the same for the key<->ciphertext relation.

As I stated, I did the changes the day before yesterday, but they have been un-done.

Please read the original paper to get the terms correct, and then please re-do my changes. The current explanation is simply incorrect.

A link:

http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~jkong/research/security/shannon1949.pdf

Shannon and chess

Matt, The justification of including chess as link at Shannon is that he was, with Turing, one of the first to think about chess playing programs on computers. In fact, he built one (a machine, I think) if memory serves. As such he belongs with (was it Newell and Simon?) as one of those who very early proposed using computers to perform as a game player. In the grand tradition (if without the fraud) of The Turk. ww 18:06, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ah, that's quite interesting; would you be able to add that to the article? — Matt 01:52, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Much of my own stuff is inaccessible just now, so whatever it is that I could check of my own is out of reach for the moment. I'll look around the Net to see if I can scare up something. ww 16:30, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Main WikiProject page

Matt, since you're basically the father of WikiProject Cryptography, I wanted to tell you about the main WikiProject page. WP Crypto isn't listed on there. I would list it myself, but I'm not sure what category it falls under. I would lean toward creating a separate subcategory of Science. --Decrypt3 13:44, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think I wasn't sure about that at the time, and then forgot all about it! Cryptography seems to fall under several categories, but perhaps we could stick it under both Mathematics and Computing? I'm not convinced it fits well under Science, as it's not so much about describing the physical world. Feel free to go ahead, though, even if you're unsure; I'd hate to think that, just because I started WikiProject Cryptography, I had any more say so than anyone else about what happens with it ;-) — Matt 18:44, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I went and put it under Mathematics - after all, it's not all about computing. --Decrypt3 20:56, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

But it does fit under Engineering. Is there a WikiProject of that sort? ww 15:24, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Quick question

Just a quick question: what software do you use to make the diagrams you have on your user page? --Decrypt3 18:36, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

I've been using Dia on a Linux machine; it's quite nice for some things, the only annoyance is not being able to include mathematical symbols and the like. — Matt 18:38, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

About Duplicate Links

Just read your comment about the Billboard featured article nomination. So are you not supposed to have links both in the content of the article and at the end? I'm used to offline articles putting a footnote like (1) and then putting the reference next to the (1) at the bottom, but that doesn't happen in Wikipedia AFAICT. I'm new here :) Jkeiser 22:24, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think so, though it's not explicit in the Manual of style. — Matt 22:41, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Another World

I still don't understand what's so horrible about my article. Can you explain it to me again? TheCustomOfLife 01:15, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's a horrible article; remember that Featured Articles are the very best of Wikipedia, so they have to be pretty good. Just because I object, doesn't mean that it's not a decent article, just that I think it could be improved to be excellent. The problem I have is that I think the article contains too much "trivial" information, as in a discussion of the exact ordering of the credits at the end of each episode, and each individual variation of how the programme is announced. — Matt 01:25, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A technical history was needed. I think those sections are nice in that they illustrate the "behind the scenes", things viewers never knew, or in some cases, never saw.

If you don't like them, honestly, please give me a suggestion as to what needs to be done. If you don't suggest anything, I won't change it. TheCustomOfLife 00:53, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK. My objection is based on my opinion that there's too much detail in the "Technical History" section; assuming this is generally agreed upon, it could be fixed simply by trimming it down. In particular:

* Trim the "The Announcer" section down to one paragraph, mentioning Bill Wolff and giving a single example of a typical introduction and conclusion.

* Lose the "Closing credits" section entirely, perhaps moving the fact about Denise Alexander's crediting stipulation to her article page (might not be a bad idea to copy this fact there in any event).

An alternative might be to move sections to separate pages, e.g. History of the announcements of Another World or The closing credits of Another World.

However, I'd prefer some more community comment on how we can judge whether facts are too trivial to include or not for a particular article. I'm convinced there is a limit (I mentioned an extreme example on the Featured Article's page — the number of thes spoken in the dialog), but I don't have guidelines (that's why I talk about a "gut feeling"). — Matt 01:27, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Closing credits and announcements moved to separate pages. Links are given at the end of the opening credits section. TheCustomOfLife 01:42, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm now supporting this. — Matt 02:02, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've replied to my newest peril/dilemma on my talk page. TheCustomOfLife 21:08, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Academia FAC status

Hi, see that talk page for my response to your helpful objection. Does that balance point get at what you were looking for? Thanks - Taxman 18:05, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

• I was just going to mention that. I wanted to let you know I took the liberty of moving 'academia' from objections to no-objections. →Raul654 03:01, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

Bible atrocities

Matt, excellent work on the Bible atrocities article. It has been improved quite a bit.

One of my main sources (as well as D. Friedman) on the subject who may interest you is:

• Mendenhall, George E. The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973.
• Mendenhall, George E. Ancient Israel's Faith and History: An Introduction to the Bible in Context, Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

He was a Navy cryptographer during WWII, one of the guys who kept successfully breaking Japanese military codes in the Pacific theater. After the war, he turned his cryptographic skills (and exhaustive skills with ancient Near Eastern languages and scripts) to the Old Testament as a professor and scholar at the University of Michigan.

Cheers, Fire Star 19:46, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bombe

Prepare to be jealous.:) I had the pleasure of visiting the National Cryptologic Museum on Thursday. Source for the believed existence of another US bombe was Jack Ingram, Curator of the Museum, during a tour of the museum (the rest of the group appeared to be NSA, no surprise - I was just tagging along, with permission, of course). He told of searching for it and not finding it whole, but noted that they can be broken down into many smaller pieces and thought that it may be buried in storage somewhere which just hasn't yet been discovered. I forget who he mentioned as his source for the statement that there should be two of them. The Bombe at the NCM is now enclosed in a plastic or glass enclosure, to protect it from more of the damaging contacts and parts thefts it experienced while it was at the Smithsonian. Jamesday 20:13, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, some caution is needed for stories in this area, particularly anything within the last few decades, since secrecy and deception are tools of the trade! I'll be back in the UK in a few months, so I'll probably arrange a visit to Bletchley Park to complete the visit set.:) Jamesday 02:24, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Polybius Square

Thanx for the suggestion, just got it as I was marking it up

Engima images

Matt, Nice images. Worth adding. Thanks. They need some more illuminating captions and I'll look into that as time permits.

What's the meaning of the cryptic initials following the English language caption? The PD I can guess at, I suppose. ww 15:32, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The initials of Greg V. Goebel, and Public Domain. — Matt 15:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Category alterations

I understood we were trying to organise the cryptography category, and I believe by piping some of the entries this would alphabetise those articles. I'm currently looking at C, and some of those articles didn't belong under C, and by sorting the category using the pipe, it replaces the item under the correct letter. That's how I understand it anyway. --TonyW 15:43, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, and I'm only too happy to help where I can. I'm still fairly new to categorisation, and I discovered by piping you can alphabetise articles, esp those involving names. As for Torus, for some reason that entry was under C, and rather than paste the whole name I entered just the first part, and it has indeed sorted it under T. Technically, I think we're supposed to enter the whole title when sorting, but got away with it on this occasion. X is a different matter tho - I notice they are not strictly in order, so that's probably a case of making show the whole name is entered or something. --TonyW 16:08, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies for getting that wrong! I'll get there in the end. -TonyW 20:17, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

I've now realised some entries I've done contain one or more of the sub-categories e.g. [[Category:Cryptographic attacks]]. Are we saying those only need to be in the one category because a sub-cat is available? If so, I'll happily just run through them all, and check them out. --TonyW 20:26, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ok. Here's a question: should 3-Way be in [[Category:Cryptographic algorithms]] seeing as it's a block cipher? --TonyW 20:36, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Glad to have been of help. I completed the remaining letters in 'Help wanted', and have since gone through each letter, one by one, to ensure each article is categorised in the way we've discussed. --TonyW 12:36, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Edits

I have added some of what made AW unique to the front page but not all of it. Review and see if it's enough. TheCustomOfLife 22:39, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

rply re PR

Matt, "Grin!" is exactly the attitude I think we should be taking towards that TT. Look, that TT will provide more than a grin (perhaps even a few guffaws) to onlookers. I say let's let anyone look on! At least they won't think us cryptiacs so dull after reading about all that! The thing that bothers me is my typos, which may convince folks that I'm some kind of spasmodic. Well, one doesn't quite control the views others have of one if one does anything publicly visible, does one?

On another topic altogether, I've discovered a clearly identifiable downside to your efforts to be bold in extirpating the satanic 'y'. When you changed Great cypher to Great cipher, my watchlist lost track of it. Clearly a bug in MediaWiki, I think. Or is it....

How are you proposing to do this PR evolution, anyway?

ww 20:08, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Great Cypher" -> "Great Cipher": That is a bug, I thought the software now tracked moves? (btw, that was because "Great Cipher's" a name for a specific cipher, rather than being a descriptive title). re PR; just dropping a note at the Village Pump, and probably the Talk: pages of everyone listed at WikiProject Cryptography. — Matt 20:13, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So, specific cipher's names must be spelled w/ i? I think I'm lost here. Yet another attack on we virtuous fans of wyverns and kyngs entangled with them.

No - just that if a name has a certain spelling, we should write it as such — I was under the impression that "Great Cipher" was the name.

Matt, The name was French of course (grand chyffre or something), and French spellings are hardly binding on English speakers/writers, nor pronounciations either -- to the eternal agnst and fury of the French. The usual English versions I've seen (at least those remembered) are spelled with y for no reason I can make out. I wonder what the original French spelling was... Might there have been an attempt to retain some of it? It might fit with the effective policy in English of keeping just enough to make it clear it came from French, but to muck it up enough to raise Continental BPs. Maybe it's good they drink so much wine over there. They need the French paradox just to cope with the cardiovascular effects of those darned English and their wycked ways.

I just went with what I'd seen. No attempt to coerce the world to the virtues of y. ww 13:45, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh, OK, sorry, must have had an over-keen moment! Feel free to move it back if you like. — Matt 15:08, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, I had hoped you had an in with Fleet Street or something. Sigh... Have you tried the BBC reporter, Reynolds? He'd probably be interested in an open content book, and would find the German progress of some EU interest. They're always looking for story ideas... ww 20:19, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Maybe when we're finished; certainly, we should post the finished "Reader" around various NG's and the like. — Matt 20:30, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Matt, NGs? On another point, I was assuming from (your?) example that comments were intended to be anonymous along some line of reasoning like a corporate work. But are we thus to be credited/blamed and so on? Do you want shared cover as editor? How is this supposed to work? ww 13:45, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I try and avoid acronyms for just this reason...I meant "newsgroups" (NG) and other internet forums. Regarding signing, it was just because it's a discussion section, and it can get very confusing (once conversations start) if noone has signed their messages! As regards blame and credit, I'm hoping it just comes across as "the work of Wikipedia" — a collaborative effort. The convention for WikiReader is (apparently) to run a script that extracts the user-names of contributers from the page histories, and list them somewhere. — Matt 15:08, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Matt, OK. You'll remain the sole editor (and get all the blame/credit).

Eh? "I'm hoping it just comes across as "the work of Wikipedia" — a collaborative effort." (previous comment); I only hope to coordinate a WikiReader, not take credit for work of which I'll have only contributed a fraction. — Matt 13:20, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As for comments, none were signed. Are they then supposed to be? I'm still not clear on this. As for your comment about the summary table, I thought you were summarizing the collective view. Are we to enter our own evaluations in this shorthand format? I'll change Great Cipher back to Great Cypher when I get a round tuit. They've been in short supply. Sorry about missing NG, I should have caught it. Chagrined again! ww 14:57, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be useful for comments to be signed, as is normal in Wikipedia discussions. I was hoping people (other than me) would enter their own evaluations in the summary table, and that we'd thereby have several scores for each article. — Matt 13:20, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

<=== eschew too many ':'

Matt, Oh. I guess I'll have to figure out how the table thing works, in that case. It wasn't clear that was how it was supposed to go. As for deleting names of contributors in the resulting Reader, I didn't have any thought the page histories would be included anyway. I guess I figured there would be a title page with Reader edited by x or alternatively, x, y, and z.

There'll probably be a "contributors" box somewhere; see page 42 of http://tkarcher.gmxhome.de/WikiReader_Schweden.pdf for an example. — Matt 14:59, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

On another page history question altogether, I just looked at the summaries in the page history for Talk:James Ellis. You once suggested that my comments on Talk pages are a bit obscure. I can now return the compliment in re edit summaries. Alice Cooper???? You've lost me again. ww 14:50, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I meant to link it: Alice Cooper (a man) — I concede it was a not very helpful edit summary! — Matt 14:59, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Matt, Yes I understood Alice Cooper is really a man. And I understand about Culture Club (I think -- though I don't particularly enjoy either's music). My problem was with Cooper's connection to James Ellis. Is there any?

Not that I'm aware of, but (if I recall correctly) the edit was correcting wrong-gender references to Alice (he / his). The not-so-witty edit summary was that if Alice was a "he", then he was probably Alice Cooper. — Matt 16:21, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Matt, Ah, wet squib humour. Now I get it. You would not believe the hyphotheses I entertained about that... Thanks. ww 16:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On another point altogether, you have changed case on both (?) of the only two category tag edits I did. I wrestled with that and left it in the only case that actually worked. It seems I've missed something yet again. Can you enlighten me? ww 16:11, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there were 25 pages linking to Category:Cryptographic Protocols; category style is to use lowercase for second and subsequent words, I believe, and this is certainly the case with the other crypto categories. Accordingly, I changed all 25 pages to Category:Cryptographic protocols. — Matt 16:21, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Matt, I tried it both ways and only the UC for P worked. I expected there was some convention that I didn't know about that I was traducing with a lc P. Thus the UC P. But ... ww 16:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Last words of Jesus

Yeah, I left a couple comments at Talk:Last words of Jesus.Stevertigo

Traditional counties of England

I've made changes to the article per your objections. I haven't tried to pull the abbreviations into the main list because I that would make it look messy and not fit properly. Morwen - Talk 17:09, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've now turned it from a (rather boring) list into an interesting paragraph. How does that look? Thanks, Morwen - Talk 14:33, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks!

For taking the time to recapitalize Category:Cryptographic protocols.

Re: Coca-Cola's nomination as a featured article

I have refactored the article to accomodate your suggestions on WP:FAC. I hope you could provide input on the article as it is now and where it could use work. Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 12:58, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Laika

Your concerns have been addressed in the last few revisions. Thanks. --Zerbey 19:49, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Other concerns about Blok A cores and famous dogs have been addressed. I'm not overly keen on the famous dogs section it doesn't seem to fit somehow. If you have an MSN/Yahoo/ICQ id please let me know via IRC today --Zerbey 17:58, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Charles Graner

• Please do not flag Charles Graner as "contested" on featured article candidates. Please notice the content of the heading at the FAC page; "If you are the only remaining objector, change "Contested" back to "Uncontested." Thanks and regards, Neutrality 04:36, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • You misunderstand; the clause you quote begins with the predicate, "If you withdraw your objection..." — Matt 04:32, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Everything objection cleaned out was either not actionable or solved (with the exception of yours). I acted on behalf of the objectors. If they wish, or if they do not feel their objections were solved, then they can take proper action (added/replacing/rewording objections or listing the entry on Featured article removal candidates). Thanks. Neutrality 04:36, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mount St. Helens

Could you take a look at that article again and comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates? --mav 08:03, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Guitar Solo

Your rewrite blew me away! The article is so much better now! Thanks a million. Two Halves, who should not try to do two things at once!

Middle-earth

Is that lead section OK? Morwen - Talk 19:45, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

FAC

Thanks for the observations on FAC regarding Russian constitutional crisis of 1993. I noticed and fixed the problems you brought to light [3] 172 17:05, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

More headings were added [4]. Thanks for the advice. 172 02:00, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Privacy policy

Good evening. You recently weighed in with an opinion on the discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User:Tim Starling/Password matches. On the basis of that discussion, I have proposed some changes to our privacy policy at Meta:Draft privacy policy. I would appreciate your thoughts if you have time. Rossami 22:18, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

XSL Attack FAC status

Hi Matt, XSL has stalled a bit. I'd like to support it, but I think it really needs more details on the attack itself. You seem well qualified to do that. - Taxman 21:07, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Sadly, I can't remember how the nitty-gritty parts of the attack worked! It'll take me a while to reread the papers and understand well enough to cook up an example, too long for the FAC process I'm afraid :( Maybe I can renominate it in a month or so... — Matt 02:16, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)