User talk:Skippydo

A tag has been placed on Shor code, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- Finngall  talk  19:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I patrol the list of new pages, so the articles I'm scanning are only a few minutes old at most. On one hand, one should give new articles a chance and I can be a bit quick on the trigger with the tags, but on the other, I'm not psychic and can only assess an article based on what's there, not what's going to be there.  There's no reason to post an incomplete article--that's what the "Show preview" button is for.  Apologies for the inconvenience. -- Finngall   talk  19:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the speedy for now, but the article does need more context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. I'm keeping it on my watchlist for the time being.  Thanks. -- Finngall   talk  19:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The link to "the original article" by Shor is to a Postscript document. Please substitute a .pdf file so that people can read it. -- Orange Mike 01:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Talk:Shor code Skippydo 08:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

ECC & Quantum Computing
You mention in an edit summary that "QC breaks ECC"... I believe you, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of that on either the Quantum Computer or the ECC pages... perhaps you could add something? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbozzo (talk • contribs) 11:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Shor's Algorithm
You put this on the physics talk page & I replied there: --Ancheta Wis (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Positive-definite matrix
I'm confused why you reverted my edit in Positive-definite matrix. This was a simple rewording. I do not see any difference in content. Skippydo (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are misunderstanding the current text. That section goes:
 * The following properties are equivalent to M being a positive-definite matrix:
 * &hellip;
 * &hellip;
 * M is the Gram matrix of $$\textbf{x}_1,\ldots,\textbf{x}_n$$ &hellip;
 * In other words, it states the theorem:
 * M is positive definite if and only if M is a Gram matrix.
 * The bit that you changed ("M is the Gram matrix of &hellip;") is not a definition, but it is the second half of a theorem. After you changed it, the theorem becomes:
 * M is positive definite if and only if, given a set of linearly independent vectors $$\textbf{x}_1,\ldots,\textbf{x}_n,$$ the matrix M defined by $$M_{ij} = \textbf{x}_i^{*} \textbf{x}_j$$ is referred to as the Gram matrix.
 * That does not seem to make sense, so that is why I reverted your edit. Perhaps we should think about rewriting that section to make it easier to understand. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Public key infrastructure
You have edited away the whole point of the article: that CAs are the most widely understood source of trusted public keys. You seem to like brevity, but brevity can not be the primary goal. Content comes first. Akurn (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Shor Code
I noticed that the Shor code is decently covered in Quantum_error_correction. Do you think we should have a separate article for it, or should the article just redirect to that section? --Robin (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I replaced it with a redirect. I would say that the Shor code does not deserve it's own article. Thank you for requesting my input. Skippydo (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. It would be a bit rude if I replaced it with a redirect after all the effort you took to save the article from deletion. --Robin (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite the rewrite?
Your changes to Public-key cryptography kind of warped the order of presentation. Now we have "A generalisation of Cocks' scheme was ..." mentioned before Cocks is introduced. Ordering the history by year of deed (whether originally publicised or not) seems reasonable enough. Were you trying for some other effect? Shenme (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hopefully, you'll find my recent change acceptable. Otherwise, feel free to make changes yourself or ask me to try again. Thank you. Skippydo (talk) 02:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Kish cypher
Pls see discussion page.PorkoltLover60 (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Skippydo,

I responded to your concerns about my changes on the talk page for the Kish Cypher. Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Cheers,

Dr. Eubanks

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kish Cypher, you may be blocked from editing. DrEubanks (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Teleportation
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Teleport (disambiguation) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Teleportation. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. I am reverting this because, in addition to being a cut-and-paste move, you basically deleted the pre-existing article at the old title without discussion. Before you try re-doing this move, please make sure there is a consensus to delete this content; also, note that there are hundreds of other Wikipedia articles that contain links to Teleportation, all of which will need to be fixed if the title becomes home to a disambiguation page. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, after further looking at these pages, it seems that there was some discussion a month or two ago, but I'm still concerned that a cut-and-paste move is not the way to go. I guess that you merged some (but I can't tell whether it was all) of Teleportation into Teleportation in fiction.  I think, at a minimum, the old history of Teleportation needs to be preserved, so  I suggest you get some assistance before trying to accomplish any moves.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Email notification of user talk page changes
(I posted the note below into a discussion at WP:AN/I that was a couple of days old. I thought I'd repost it here since you're probably not going back over old discussions to look for updates.)

While a change to a user talk page can in fact trigger an email notification (see WP:EMAIL; this feature was enabled in 2011 for the English Wikipedia), an editor must have enabled email for his/her account for this to happen. You can see if an editor has done this by looking for a link of "E-mail this user". The page User talk:PorkoltLover60 doesn't (now) have that link (nor does your user talk page, at the moment.) By contrast, you can see such a link here, for an editor that I arbitrarily picked from the Recent changes page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You removed the entry about classical teleportation from the Kish cypher page by arguing that it was not published
Skippydo, you removed the entry about classical teleportation created by 195.113.87.138 at the Kish cypher page by the argument that the scheme was not published. Agreed, it was indeed poorly referenced (arxiv) by 195.113.87.138, however, you could see in the abstract page of the arxiv link that it was published. Also a DOI was given there that directly led to the journal publication itself, see:. Please restore the deleted section. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.21.186 (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm shocked this was actually published. Feel free to restore the section. I personally have no problem if primary sources are from arxiv for a few years but I didn't expect classical teleportation would make it through peer review. Skippydo (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that you are unfamiliar with the concept. It is not new. The key is in the word "Classical": Classical teleportation of **classical** bits. This is different from quantum teleportation of quantum bits. You probably missed to pickup the second "classical". "Classical teleportation of quantum bits" would indeed be impossible. Here is an exhaustive analysis of such schemes by Oliver Cohen: http://www.worldscinet.com/fnl/06/0602/S0219477506003240.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.21.186 (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The journal appears to be peer-reviewed but I'm totally dumbfounded by statements like:
 *  The instantaneous transfer across an arbitrary spatial distance of a quantum state that can be defined to arbitrary precision, a state that is completely unknown to both sender and receiver, seems startling, remarkable, and, in particular, non-classical.
 * I don't know what to do about stuff that's well-sourced but complete nonsense. I guess we just have to wait until the scientific community sorts it out, if they even bother. Skippydo (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That sentence is not particularly difficult, it is what quantum teleportation people claim. It is a similar (but more complex) matter as when you do a quantum measurement on one member of an entangled photon pair. At the moment, it seems you "transfer information" to the other photon that maybe far away, out-of-space within zero time-duration, because you kick it into the complementary state of your measurement. Teleportation is more complex but this is an essential component in it. Cohen is using only classical treatments; he only presents "quantum weirdness" there. No such thing is in the classical teleportation paper Kish-Mingesz, that is standard classical operation. Would you do the favor of restoring the section? I am amateur on wiki and such operations need painful effort. You look like a Wiki-professional for whom this is easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.21.186 (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not what the quantum people claim about quantum teleportation. QT takes place in 3 steps, a bell pair is shared, a measurement is made, classical bits are transmitted. The last step is bounded by the speed of light. The state of the system before the last step has not transmitted any information about the quantum state to be transmitted. Hence is it not instantaneous. The remarkable property of QT is that an arbitrary quantum state can be transmitted using a quantum channel which can transmit part of a bell pair and a classical channel. Specifically, we can turn a channel that's good at transmitting a part of a bell pair into a good quantum channel. I don't know what an analogous concept would be for a two-state (classical) system, but what that paper says isn't it. Skippydo (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course, quantum teleportation is more than just entanglement, as I said that, too. But just see your sentence "a bell pair is shared, a measurement is made", which is the same as I described above, as illustration. In any case, classical teleportation of classical bits is different: in its simplest version it means that the information cannot be detected at any points in the space between the agents. The teleportation will be the result of interaction of two separate channels at the end. In general, quantum teleportation also requires two channels which "interact" at the arrival point. Thus, from a classical science-fiction writer's point of view, neither quantum nor classical teleportation are the teleportation they talk about in Star Trek. It is just a popular nickname that has been spreading for these types of secure network communications. Cohen and others proved that the concept works also classically just like classical entanglement. --130.238.21.186 (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Kish cypher: Vandalism by Gsbsmith
Hi Skippydo,

You seem to be the caretaker of the Kish cypher page. I would like to bring to your attention to the vandalism of Gsbsmith, see the last few reverse changes. The page looked reasonable (though far from perfect) with well-referenced added/corrected text and added figure; all supported with citations. So far, this was the highest quality description of the Kish cypher on wiki.

Gsbsmith's emotional vandalism to destroy the well documented/referenced work of others is remarkable. It is interesting that during these blind actions he even removed a reference that was supporting his view.

I, similarly to many other reasonable people, am not interested to enter into a shadow-box type anonymous fight. I am just pointing out to you, the caretaker, that the wiki rules have been heavily violated by removing text and figure that were based on cited references, and by blindly pushing his personal opinion.

This is my only and final email about this matter. It is up to you, the "caretaker" to decide if you want to do anything about it by standing up for the wiki rules or let the page stay useless.

(At the end of the day, it does not matter much: realistic people who are interested in this have already learned to seek other sources; but I felt wiki deserved another comment).

Thanks, Rubmum (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it vandalism and I wouldn't call myself a caretaker. But he is certainly introducing bias and I'll keep my eyes on it. Although, I don't really understand the actual material, unfortunately. Skippydo (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the positive step of restoring the page to its much better state, which then was again vandalized. Your last step: proposing the deletion of the Kish cypher page is also excellent. Under these conditions, where the wiki rules of having balanced articles based on peer reviewed publications cannot be enforced, eliminating the page is the best option. Let the experts of the two sides continue their discussions in peer reviewed journals. And their wiki-fighter followers, who apparently don't really understand the details, should continue their fights elsewhere, not in wiki. I hope your proposal of deletion will be realized. Thanks! Rubmum (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Please find my supporting text to delete the Kish cypher page at its Talk page. Thanks, Laszlo Kish http://www.ece.tamu.edu/People/bios/bkish.php Laszlo B Kish (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)