User talk:Contestcen

Welcome!

Hello, Contestcen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! —arf! 06:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Word Rebus

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Word Rebus, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Fram 08:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Math expressions

{{helpme}} The articles that I have written or edited contain many math expressions and equations. When the article is displayed, these expressions often get split in the middle li

ke this. It makes them hard to read. I have tried using the HTML tag nobr but that just causes the tag to be displayed.

Checking with the HTML 4.01 Specification I cannot find a nobr tag. Unfortunately, the only advice the specification offers is to insert a non-breaking space  , but for your work on the Three-pass protocol‎ article, that doesn't seem appropriate since it seems to split the line before any "(" whether or not there is a space character. I also had a look for a formatting template that might do the right thing, but I couldn't find one. I'm starting to think there is no way to do what you want without putting each expression on a new line. However, I could be wrong, so I've left your {{helpme}} alone in the hope a real expert will know for sure. Astronaut (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to post this at WP:RD/Math or WT:WPM. Those are the best places to get help with maths formatting in my experience. Algebraist 14:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider using the <math> tag and forcing the PNG rendering as described at WP:FORMULA. I changed a few in Three-pass protocol‎ so you could see what I mean. Although the text size is larger, it will always be grouped together. Please undo my edit and replace your {{help}} template if you'd like another answer. Hoof Hearted (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Contescen, your repeated edits and reverts based on belief rather than verifiable sources are becoming increasingly annoying. Please, note that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Original research, such as the new definition of the Three-pass protocol are not welcome. Rather you should reflect what is already published (see WP:OR). Cryptography is not as easy as one might think first. In particular, you should refer to source if you want to claim an attack against a cryptosystem (such as you did with Massey-Omura cryptosystem) or if you want to claim that a scheme is secure against a certain type of attack (e.g. you claim that certain three-pass protocols are secure against certain attacks). In fact, your claims can shown to be incorrect. Please stop removing requests for citations, just because you might think that certain facts are true. There are quite a few editors on wikipedia having a PhD, working on one or having similar education and could help out. But remember that finding appropriate citations can take some time. Finally, note that removing contested edits and marking such reverts as minor edits is considered to be rude. Thanks. 85.2.48.141 (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted my responses at the end of the discussion page. Please place any further remarks there, so that the discussion does not get fragmented. If you feel you can justify any of your claims that my article contains "original research" or "dubious claims" or "unverified results" please post your evidence there. Contestcen (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Word Rebus

An article that you have been involved in editing, Word Rebus, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Word Rebus. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Muchness (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]