Talk:Phil Zimmermann

message: I really think this article needs some background for Zimmermann, as it is relevant towards his motive for writing the software he did. I see there are links to articles that might provide such info.. --abach 09:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wherehore by their fruitshole ye shall know them  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: That phrase would be fine, given another name ...??   77.100.103.108 (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In this context, a synonym. asymmetric key encryption algoerithms require two related keys (unlike symmetric key algorithms which use only one identical key at both ends of a communications link), but not all asymmetric key algorithms have the public key/private key property which means that one key can be made public as the other is not findable if the first is known. The public /private key property also allows such things as digital signature and authentication protocols, which were also built into PGP by Zimmerman from the beginning. ww (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

text: _and_ then.  Midgley (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "one of the first" 

message: I suppose it is marginally interesting that Z's name is mentioned, but is the assertion that Leonard of Quirm made the first - rudimentary - public key encryption system and that this is comparable to PGP actually true?  If it is, I think there really ought to be a citation from a work intended to be credible.  Midgley (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read all of one and part of another of Dan Brown's books, both involving crypto more or less, and on that evidence, Dan Brown is NOT an authority on crypto. As for Leonard of Quirm, well he's not found in any of the crypto history I'm familiar with. I suspect an imaginary precedenece. ww (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dan Brown as an authority?? 

message: WP:ROC WP:SS WP:TOPIC WP:IINFO
From  this alphabet soup it is unclear why exactly a referenced and useful information must be deleted from wikipedia. Please state your specific objectsions cease the revert war. Without specificaly stated objections I cannot present counter-arguments, and all I can do is revert you back. As an admin you must know better than to engage in revert wars without clear arguments. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not Nikkimaria, but I'll bite.  The material deleted does not belong in this article.  It is about Pretty Good Privacy, only tangentially about Zimmerman.  The material is already in the PGP article; it is not appropriate here. TJRC (talk) 00:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. As I said in my first summary, this is the wrong article for that information (the "alphabet soup" was in response to your claim that I gave no reason). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly for both of you. First, "Wrong article" is not a valid reason for deletion of information. According to all content policies I've read, text deletion (an approach favored by Nikkimaria) is not the way to handle the case. The proper way is to merge.  Second, how the author of something can be "only tangentially" related, beats me. Moreover, we have WP:Summary style, which explicitely says that some info may be present in both articles (although in different forms: summary and expanded). Third, immediate actions of a Zimmermann  ("Zimmermann invented", "Zimmermann implenmented") surely belong to the article about him. Well, the latter statement is my opinion, which may be wrong, but this is a matter of discussion (policy interpretaion, level of relevance, etc.) in talk page and not a revert war by an administrator. And I am repeating for the fourth time to this admin Nikkimaria, throwing an "alphabet soup"  in an edit summary is not a valid argument. Seriously, do you want me to list all items in 5 policies and for each 42 of them to explai why it is not applicable to the case in question? I repeatedly asked Nikkimaria to give specific arguments, so that I could have agreeed or disagreed with them. But this administrator prefers edit wars and personal bickering. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

text: FWIW, I thought that "Wrong page" was a perfectly adequate explanation. I understood it. TJRC (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW I understood the phrase thank you. My English is not that bad. But I disagreed with it. Do you know what civilized people do in case of disagreements? Do you want me to throw in some alphabet soup to this end? Now, Please prove that this text is in wrong page. Nikkimaria's deletion of a whole paragraphpartially restored, after some reading around. I did not restore the whole paragraph because I didn't find evidence that it was Zimmermann who invented these funny names. And this is what I am doing in some places of Nikkimaria's bold cuts without pastes: restoring information immediately relevant to the main subject of the article.  Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, the material at issue was already present in the PGP article.  There was nothing to merge.  Deletion was appropriate.  In its present state (not the state where Nikkimaria made the edits that you objected to), it's less objectionable, because it's at least related to the subject of the article.  It's now a matter of editorial judgement.  But in the previous state, it was clearly content immaterial to the article, and its deletion from this page, while retaining it in PGP, was an improvement. TJRC (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not an improvement, because all deleted information was directly related to Zimmermann, only, as I said, I didn't find the references (yet) that it was Zimmermann who invented the terms. When I find these refs, I will restore all deleted information. It is much easier to cut and slash 10 edits per minute for good edit count growing than to do proper research. Any editorial judgement which deletes properly referenced information directly connected to the article subject is detrimental to wikipedia. Different readers have different interests and different opinions what is important and what is not. I case of doubt the bias is supposed to be generaly in favor of retaining of information, not deletion. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just read an insightful essay WP:DGAF and agree it was my problem. No more. Sorry. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent deletions 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Phil Zimmermann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Past-News/The-25-Most-Influential-Products-of-the-Past-25-Years/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040405065312/http://www.crn.com/sections/special/hof/hof01.asp?ArticleID=31279 to http://www.crn.com/sections/special/hof/hof01.asp?ArticleID=31279
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724053221/http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/00/10/09/001009hnpz.xml to http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/00/10/09/001009hnpz.xml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030812140828/http://grep.law.harvard.edu/article.pl?sid=03%2F06%2F06%2F1441247&mode=nested to http://grep.law.harvard.edu/article.pl?sid=03%2F06%2F06%2F1441247&mode=nested
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified