This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
'Although she is often referred to as the wife of William F. Friedman...' did sound a bit patronizing - she was a notable person in her own right. Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This article seems to rely heavily on the NSA's Hall of Honor entry. I have added citations to the page throughout the article, and added the Template:Copypaste to the 'Government Service' section. Please could someone look at revising that section and using additional sources? Or remove the template and add a note here if the source text is properly licensed (I can't see that it is)? Whilomish ( talk) 11:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
It indeed confesses in the references to being adapted from NSA.GOV Hall of Honor testimonial. If a US GOV website makes no copyright claim, it is US GOV copyright. Isn't that almost as good as Public Domain? (Unlike Crown Copyright, which is not.) -- Bill 72.74.145.170 ( talk) 15:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm starting work to improve the page here and it is becoming pretty clear after adding citations and looking at supporting material that the Wikipedia entry should be moved from Elizebeth Friedman to Elizebeth Smith Friedman. The collected papers uses the full three words of her name -- and I asked the author of the most recent book on her, who did a ton of primary research within this collection, if he uses the three words for her name and he said yes he does. So if there's no objection I'm going to go ahead and change the page title. I think the prior name should be a redirect. -- BrillLyle ( talk) 06:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Twice now an editor is deleting content / metadata on this page.
I have reverted the edits because this deletion constitutes vandalism on the page. I also see that this editor almost exclusively deletes contents from pages as their sole contribution to Wikipedia. Here I am trying to improve the content of pages.
The removal of the language tag of the works is problematic because once I have finished updating this Wikipedia entry on English Wikipedia, the tags will be important when I update and transfer the citations to the other language pages that exist for this page. Also, English language tags don't even appear on the visible entry, they are suppressed on En Wiki but will appear when I copy the citations. English language tags are also now typically -- and automatically -- added when using the RefToolbar 2.0 Citoid lookup. They are meant to be there.
The addition of open or closed content to a citation is a new thing that is supported on Wikipedia as part of the free culture and open access movement. And adding a printed ISBN is helpful to make the citation complete.
The fact that this editor has reverted my edits twice is a big concern. There seems to be no acknowledgment that this is a destructive pattern of editing. They are also not bringing the discussion to this Talk page, which is another argument for the restoration of the good content -- and the framing of their removal of content from the infoboxes and citations as vandalism. -- BrillLyle ( talk) 15:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
|years_active=
entry you have added is not currently supported by article text, and initialisms are not other names. Also,
line breaks are deprecated.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
15:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)The article states: "During World War II, Friedman's Coast Guard unit was transferred to the Navy where they solved a difficult Enigma machine code used by German Naval Intelligence." Is this a fact? Was it done independently from Turing's team at Bletchley Park? Does not sound very plausible and articles about Enigma do not mention her name. Tsf ( talk) 14:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Shoudn't the nice hidden message in "Knowledge is power" be explained in a sentence? - right now, it's only shown in the title of the ref' PDF at the burial site. -- User:Haraldmmueller 09:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Could there be quotes? 2601:903:4000:13E0:A848:4928:FFC1:3FD3 ( talk) 21:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
'Although she is often referred to as the wife of William F. Friedman...' did sound a bit patronizing - she was a notable person in her own right. Jackiespeel ( talk) 10:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This article seems to rely heavily on the NSA's Hall of Honor entry. I have added citations to the page throughout the article, and added the Template:Copypaste to the 'Government Service' section. Please could someone look at revising that section and using additional sources? Or remove the template and add a note here if the source text is properly licensed (I can't see that it is)? Whilomish ( talk) 11:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
It indeed confesses in the references to being adapted from NSA.GOV Hall of Honor testimonial. If a US GOV website makes no copyright claim, it is US GOV copyright. Isn't that almost as good as Public Domain? (Unlike Crown Copyright, which is not.) -- Bill 72.74.145.170 ( talk) 15:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm starting work to improve the page here and it is becoming pretty clear after adding citations and looking at supporting material that the Wikipedia entry should be moved from Elizebeth Friedman to Elizebeth Smith Friedman. The collected papers uses the full three words of her name -- and I asked the author of the most recent book on her, who did a ton of primary research within this collection, if he uses the three words for her name and he said yes he does. So if there's no objection I'm going to go ahead and change the page title. I think the prior name should be a redirect. -- BrillLyle ( talk) 06:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Twice now an editor is deleting content / metadata on this page.
I have reverted the edits because this deletion constitutes vandalism on the page. I also see that this editor almost exclusively deletes contents from pages as their sole contribution to Wikipedia. Here I am trying to improve the content of pages.
The removal of the language tag of the works is problematic because once I have finished updating this Wikipedia entry on English Wikipedia, the tags will be important when I update and transfer the citations to the other language pages that exist for this page. Also, English language tags don't even appear on the visible entry, they are suppressed on En Wiki but will appear when I copy the citations. English language tags are also now typically -- and automatically -- added when using the RefToolbar 2.0 Citoid lookup. They are meant to be there.
The addition of open or closed content to a citation is a new thing that is supported on Wikipedia as part of the free culture and open access movement. And adding a printed ISBN is helpful to make the citation complete.
The fact that this editor has reverted my edits twice is a big concern. There seems to be no acknowledgment that this is a destructive pattern of editing. They are also not bringing the discussion to this Talk page, which is another argument for the restoration of the good content -- and the framing of their removal of content from the infoboxes and citations as vandalism. -- BrillLyle ( talk) 15:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
|years_active=
entry you have added is not currently supported by article text, and initialisms are not other names. Also,
line breaks are deprecated.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
15:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)The article states: "During World War II, Friedman's Coast Guard unit was transferred to the Navy where they solved a difficult Enigma machine code used by German Naval Intelligence." Is this a fact? Was it done independently from Turing's team at Bletchley Park? Does not sound very plausible and articles about Enigma do not mention her name. Tsf ( talk) 14:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Shoudn't the nice hidden message in "Knowledge is power" be explained in a sentence? - right now, it's only shown in the title of the ref' PDF at the burial site. -- User:Haraldmmueller 09:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Could there be quotes? 2601:903:4000:13E0:A848:4928:FFC1:3FD3 ( talk) 21:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)