User talk:Loadmaster/Archive 7



File permission problem with File:NadineVelazquez1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:NadineVelazquez1.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

COBOL pointers
It would be great if you could expand upon your statement here:


 * Memory space for such objects are typically allocated dynamically...

by clarifying what 'such objects' are; it's not clear whether you are talking about the object to which pointers point (which seems likely) or the pointers themselves (which seems unlikely). Mfwitten (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the former. Hope that this edit clarifies things. — Loadmaster (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Bit count error in RSA numbers
In your edit to the RSA numbers on this article, some of the bit counts are incorrect. I have changed one number and am willing to change to rest if you can confirm this was an error and not a misunderstanding on my part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingvashy (talk • contribs) 07:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is correct to communicate such things on a user's pages (but at the bottom, not the top of the page); typically, I will respond to your post here. As far as the change, no, I did not use Python, but a simple calculator (using logarithms). I tended to round up, so that a result such as converting 306 decimal digits into binary digits (306 ÷ log(2) = 1026.475) rounds down to 1,026 bits. But you may be correct, since a 1,024-bit value has 308.25 decimal digits, which might be advertised by RSA as 309 decimal digits. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * A number of the bit counts are wrong (10-99 all have 2 decimal digits but there binary digits vary from 4 to 7). I wrote some python code to automatically fix the counts and will apply it to this page. Are there any other pages were this error might have been made? (also is this the correct place to respond and should I / do I need to sign my comments with the User/Date stamp?) — Kingvashy (talk) 17:04:13, 2011-05-23


 * Yes, that's fine. And yes, you should always sign your posts (with ). Also, you should indent your post one level more than the one you're replying to. Also, it is confusing if you edit your previous posts; it's better to simply clarify your point in your later post, leaving the original intact to maintain the historical flow of the conversation. If you must correct something you wrote, use &lt;del&gt; markups to indicate what you are removing ( like this ). See Talk page guidelines for more info. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we have resolved the bit count issue. And thank you for the tips / help with Wikipedia conventions. Feel free to delete this any time Kingvashy (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Research
We're conducting research with Wikipedia to improve the Wikipedia mobile and editing experience. We would really like to get feedback from you, and to have you participate in our study. Please let me know if you are interested. AnswerLab-Nick (talk) nnomm@answerlab.com 22:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

HAMP (disambiguation)
User:Rodw created Hamp as a redirect to North Petherton recently. I was looking for "Hamp" and didn't bother to capitalize it. Rodw pointed out to me that the HAMP page should probably be "Hamp". Rodw has no objection to changing the redirect to the HAMP page, but we should get other comments.Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 20:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Follow-up discussion at: Talk:North Petherton.

Sieve of Zakiya
I don't know if you are watching the page; I agree with your take, which is why I've nominated the page for deletion. You can post your opinion on that at the RfD page. Regards, Magidin (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)