User talk:DataWraith/Archive 1

Bitcoin
I have increased the hidden text on the Bitcoin talkpage to include your comment. This is because your comment is clearly about me and not specifically about the content of the article. It could be regarded as a personal attack. Not that I think it is a particularly bad personal attack but more that the article talkpage is just not the venue for this sort of diversion. Polargeo (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, just go ahead an squelch any and all criticism. — DataWraith (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

RC4 Test Vectors
The test vectors listed have one wrong byte, for the 'Wiki' key whether you want to believe it or not. There is no mention of that particular error in the talk pages you linked to, so I'm not sure of your opposition to putting in the correction.

However at this point that's not the problem I'm concerned about - I have my working cipher program so I no longer need correct test vectors. The problem you, and other arrogant users like you create is that because you feel info other people provide is always wrong means people with the right information won't bother to contribute content, much less donate to the site. Hell, I know I'm not going to bother giving back to the community anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodvikings1 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to leave a note.
 * I have to admit that I was slightly prejudiced against the change you made, because it looked a lot like subtle vandalism: edit by an IP address without any contributions, no edit summary, change disagrees with existing consensus. That you just put it back in, in effect saying "It is true! I say so!" did not help either, so I pointed you to the talk page (albeit less politely than I maybe should have).
 * There was no mention of that particular "error" on the talk page because the contributors agreed with the current value. You could have added a comment/question about the test vector there too -- if your edit is reverted, and you disagree with that, it is usually a good idea to explain your reason for the change on the talk page. See STATUSQUO.
 * I took the time to doublecheck, and made sure that my own implementation, which gives a value matching the one in the article (6044db6d41b7e8e7a4d6f9fbd4428354...), was correct, by comparing its output to the official test vectors.
 * The notion that "users like me" are arrogant is something that happens in your head; please don't assume bad things about other people so quickly. — DataWraith (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)