User talk:Thomas Springer

Massive adding of external links to "serversniff.net"
This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link,  you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia.

More than the half of this user's edits are spam links to "serversniff.net". This includes edits to the following articles (in no particular order) : Serpent (cipher), RC2, Twofish, Blowfish, CAST-256, Triple DES, XTEA, Advanced Encryption Standard, Data Encryption Standard, GOST 28147-89, CAST-128, SAFER, Transport Layer Security, Gost-Hash, MD2, HAVAL, https, tcptraceroute, traceroute.

The user's likely IP address or sock puppet,, has also done similar edits, namely MD4, Frame Check Sequence, RIPEMD, Cyclic redundancy check, SHA hash functions, Tiger (hash) and WHIRLPOOL.

The IP address also made a (single) such edit to Time to live -- intgr 17:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * While i don't really have a problem with these links removed, i want to make clear, that the pages that were linked are (afaik) a unique online-rescource to test or compare different hashes or encryption-types or check e.g. IP-ttl's of differnt hosts. You might argue that the pages or operated by me, but they definitely do comply whith External_links. Again: Remove the links if you don't want them - but at least to me SPAM is something different. Thomas Springer 15:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would argue that "testing or comparing" common encryption or hash algorithms just by looking at their output in base64 is useless. No real encryption algorithm is so weak that it would be discernible from pseudorandom permutation just by encrypting text strings and having a look at the output. Neither does it even mention how the crypto key is derived from the password. It's also useless for anything practical, since (as you admit on the web site), all data goes through your servers.
 * As for traceroute/ping sites, there are hundreds of these out there. I don't know about checking TTLs of sites, sounds pretty useless to me.
 * Despite not being blatant spam (the criteria you pointed out), I would say that these links were added in order to promote your web site (conflict of interest) and as explained above, fail to be useful. Not to mention the sheer number of links you have added. Hence why I personally consider them "spam" -- intgr 01:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was also struck by the fact that most of your edits said "linkfix" or something analogous in their summary, as if trying to look like you were "fixing" links instead of adding your own. -- intgr 11:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * these were in fact linkfixes - check the .diff Thomas Springer 13:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)