User talk:BinaryPlanet

Preprints as sources
With a few limited exceptions (that do not apply here), Wikipedia doesn't use self published materials as sources, and we consider preprints or 'working papers' such as what you're attempting to use as a source to be self published. If there is a version that has completed peer review, please cite that instead. MrOllie (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * As for the former in the preprint version it is understandable. But as for Blum Blum Shub being removed? I don't get it. BinaryPlanet (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for your consideration of my Blum-Blum-Shub edition, a really great algorithm, and although it is not new, it is widely used nowadays and very useful in the cybersecurity field.
 * As for the issue including the recent "Itamaraca PRNG" and as I imagined from what I could learn more about this Cambridge University platform, it guarantees that its preprints have the same rigor as a journal publication, as can be seen at the following address. I wouldn't risk posting any material and being prohibited from collaborating here.
 * https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/open-research/open-access/open-access-myths?utm_source=hootsuite&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Brand+Comms_NJP_oamyths_apr22
 * As I saw that there are materials on the list published in a preprint version coming from ArXiv I thought that there is no problem in this respect.
 * I am also missing other classical algorithms and other more recent ones in which their results have proven to be very interesting such as Fortuna, ISAAC, Yarrow, Garcia-Bosque et al. (2018) and Ivanov et al. (2020). I plan to add them as well or they are left for others to post. What do you think about it? BinaryPlanet (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)