In the period of 3 minutes and a few seconds, starting 16:50, 15 January 2007, User:Jtalledo made 5 edits on this talk page, relating to the following edit-hx entries; 4 of those 5 edits concern (but do not all match up 1-to-1 with) the following 5 talk-history entries:
- 22:03, 9 November 2006 User:Xeon25
- 02:54, 7 November 2006 User:71.38.245.79
- 18:30, 6 October 2006 User:Xeon25
- 22:11, 5 October 2006 User:24.217.13.77
- 11:47, 3 October 2006 User:Xeon25
The 4 of Jt's edits i'm discussing affected the three following "ordinary-level sections" within this current talk "super-section"; Jt's purpose in making the 4 was to add attribution to 5 edits that were left unsigned & undated by their respective contributors:
- (fixed at 16:50:53): (re 18:30, 6 October 2006 edit) "24.217.13.77" (but should have been attributed to Xeon25 [and thus see next (16:51) fix]:)
- (fixed at 16:51):
- changed attribution from 24. ... to "Xeon25";
- also (re "22:11, 5 October 2006 ) "24.217.13.77"
- (fixed at 16:52): In the "Importance" section, 2 separate contribs attributed respectively to
- Xeon25 [&]
- 71.38.245.79
- (fixed at 16:53): 71
[Saving prior to completion, let alone checking against errors due to confusion]-- Jerzy• t 08:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Phew, this was nine years ago! And you made detailed lists and everything! There must be some kind of record! Heh. Good on you, pal. -- Jtalledo (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
The article was labeled with a lack of importance on the subject matter. Would someone care to elaborate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xeon25 ( talk • contribs). —Preceding undated comment added 11:47, 3 October 2006
RE [WW]: I think it hits the importance fine. It gives a history of the codebreaker, even if it does have a few blank spots. Some more community esque things could be noted, but thats all side stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.217.13.77 ( talk • contribs).—Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 5 October 2006
I gave the article a complete overhaul. Some new info about the site and a brief history about the Code Breaker was added, and I cleaned up the grammar a bit. Anything else to add? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xeon25 ( talk • contribs).
Actually, the site for new codes for the Codebreaker, CMGSCCC.com appears to be down. Might be an issue with my computer, but I highly doubt it, at this point. -- K1darkknight ( talk) 19:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's not down. There may be times when users will encounter database errors and such, but they're often corrected quickly. - Xeon25 ( talk) 09:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- "Pelican accessories is no longer making versions of Codebreaker because no one wants lawsuits for jacking into the game's scripts": What?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.120.143 ( talk) 02:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The CodeBreaker DS will be shipped sometime next week. Be happy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.38.245.79 ( talk • contribs).
- Pure speculation. I'm an administrator on the official site, and there has been no official release date given. - Xeon25 22:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that "codebreaker" redirects here. I just clicked on the codebreaker link found at the introduction of the article Voynich_manuscript.However, it refers to cryptanalysts, not to the cheat device "Code Breaker" (obviously).
Should "codebreaker" redirect to Cryptanalysis? Or should we create a disambiguation page? Please help, I am a newbie and I don't know how to do it. 77.49.2.144 09:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads up, with my addition of the External Links section, I included the No Table of Contents tag to prevent the currently unneeded TOC from displaying.
Zet Hikari 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Aside from DS and PS2, there's also a Game Boy Color version. They seem to be pretty rare. Were there any others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.175.105 ( talk) 06:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have the PS1 version. - MK ( t/ c) 10:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)