User talk:JuanXonValdez
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello JuanXonValdez, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Samw 15:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Elonka Dunin
You removed her from Category:Modern cryptographers with the comment "She does not merit being listed among the world's top cryptographers." That may or may not be true - I'm not a cryptography expert - but is irrelevant, because the category is merely for "modern cryptographers", which she indisputably is - she is modern, being alive and active, and she is a cryptographer, having written a book and given several interviews and speeches on the subject. "Top" is not a judgement the category makes. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- This woman has conducted no original research in cryptography. Writing a book on the topic does not make her a cryptographer. --JuanXonValdez 16:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- The Elonka Dunin#Cryptographer article section seems to cite notable achievements in the field, notable in the sense that they got lots of attention. That's enough. Not being an expert, I don't know if they qualify as "original research", but that is rarely required to be merely a member of a field - working in the field successfully, even if only applying tools and techniques developed by others, is often considered enough. Many practicing pilots, doctors, and plumbers, are considered perfectly fine members of their field while doing very little research in aeronautics, medicine, and plumbing respectively, they just apply it in practice. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with AnonEMouse. If someone's notability is based on something they do with cryptography, then they are a cryptographer for the purposes of categorisation. I wouldn't worry about it; it's just a word we use to describe what someone does, not a title of honour or anything. — Matt Crypto 18:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- The Elonka Dunin#Cryptographer article section seems to cite notable achievements in the field, notable in the sense that they got lots of attention. That's enough. Not being an expert, I don't know if they qualify as "original research", but that is rarely required to be merely a member of a field - working in the field successfully, even if only applying tools and techniques developed by others, is often considered enough. Many practicing pilots, doctors, and plumbers, are considered perfectly fine members of their field while doing very little research in aeronautics, medicine, and plumbing respectively, they just apply it in practice. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Your rationale might make sense for a category "Top Researchers in Cryptography," but Elonka IS 1) a cryptographer, and 2) she's "modern" (i.e., alive). "Writing a book on the topic" in my opinion DOES make her a cryptographer. Heck, I'm a cryptographer (I dabble in steganography) and I don't have a scintilla of Elonka's chops. Check out the Kryptos entry in Wikipedia where it says "The Russian portion of the cipher on the Cyrillic Projector and Antipodes was solved in 2003 via an international effort organized by Elonka Dunin, with the cryptographic component independently cracked by Frank Corr and Mike Bales." Not being published in a peer reviewed mathematical journal dedicated to, or concerning, cryptography is not the issue. She's involved, notable, and skilled in the field. Nuff said. -- Quartermaster 22:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
-
