Talk:Smithy code

Cryptography: Computer science Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science.

Speculative solution

Um, the proposed solution under "Possible answers" seems rather far-fetched, don't you think? Bromskloss 18:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite, Wikipedia is not a place for stuff like this, which is effectively original research and rather useless besides. Please do not use the article as a record of every red herring you've chased down in your personal attempts to solve the code. --Michael Snow 19:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fibonacci solution

Who shall credit go to? Or should it just stay "an anonymous Wikipedia user"? --Elonka 01:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London Times? [1] (posted by Ashikaba).

Thanks! I look forward to finding out who gets specific credit. --Elonka 01:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you an email, Elonka. 158-152-12-77 08:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No orginal research, this article is against wikipedia policy. 203.112.2.212 15:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tool for cracking the code

Can somone please add the external link http://smithycode.wikitimescale.org/

Please follow the link and decide wheater its usefull for this article or not, if you think it's usefull, please add it. It is a tool to crack the code or try to crack the code (since it already has been cracked). Nothing special, but I had a controversy with an admin about another story and he deleted all my external links, including this one which has nothing to do with the original controversy. I am now no longer allowed by this admin to add this link to this article. This admin recommended to write this request into the discussion page and wait for someone other who think it's worthy to add this link. Thank you. Echalone 20:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]