Collapse Welcome Message
| ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
January 2011
Hi. You seem to have deleted quite enough of the technical information of bitcoin with this edit. Although there was considerable repetition within the 2 sections (basis & technical),i would suggest re-merge both sections into a single one, maintaining all their subsection titles, since they provided a helpful overview of the project. Regards for your efforts, Sperxios ( talk) 22:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
- Feel free to make those changes yourself. My apologies for using more of a broad sword than a scalpel with that edit, but I just didn't see the need for a basis section. Isn't that what the intro section at the top of the article is for? KLP ( talk) 16:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- If you'd like to continue this discussion, let's do it in Talk:Bitcoin. KLP ( talk) 16:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
December 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from
Bitcoin. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been
reverted. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you. You have removed a self citation tag with
this edit without resolving the issue
Polargeo (
talk) 14:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi and welcome to Libertarianism. The article has a fraught history, and at times difficult talk page. In particular we value high quality reliable sourcing. Infoshop's Anarchist FAQ has repeatedly failed Reliable Sourcing criteria due to its lack of editorial review. You might consider using Colin Ward's magisterial Anarchism instead, or the ABC-CLIO academic Encyclopedia of Anarchism. Tasks also available include the removal of content cited against dubious and unreliable sources (most of which are commented as such inside the article.
According to wikipedia's policies of Verifiability, and NPOV, a clear case has been made of two points:
- That political parties calling themselves "Libertarian" exist which support capitalism
- That think-tanks exist calling themselves "Anarchist" which support extreme neo-liberal capitalist agendas.
Whether these groups are "correct" in doing so lies outside of Wikipedia's scope; and, criticism of these views should be sourced to Reliable, and preferably High Quality (ie: scholarly or magisterial) Reliable Sources. In the past twelve months the article has suffered from repeated attempts to exclude "left"-wing pro-capitalist libertarians (think Georgists and other anti-"rent" economists), and, in particular, to exclude all kinds of libertarian socialism from the article. These attempts greatly disrupted the article, and, were in the whole not based on sources at all, and where based on sources, based on unreliable or low quality reliable sources. At this point in time, where the article is in a positive position of inclusionism on the basis of high quality reliable sources, exclusionist behaviour based on low quality reliable sources or unreliable sources isn't needed. You could, however, expand or correct left-libertarian, and libertarian socialist, elements of the article based on high quality reliable sources. In particular the revolutionary elements of the IInd internationale, and subsequent revolutionary social democrats with libertarian leanings (sections of the PSI, Austrian SP, Hungarian SP in the 30-50s), and other non-anarchist libertarians (Fabians, autonomists, councilists, Left SRs, etc) are undersourced.
Happy editing. Fifelfoo ( talk) 08:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Infoshop's Anarchist FAQ has repeatedly failed Reliable Sourcing criteria due to its lack of editorial review." What about AK Press's printed edition? KLP ( talk) 15:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, I'd suggest taking it to WP:RS/N, Wikipedia's clearing house for reliable sources. I don't feel I can offer a definitive opinion because of a partial conflict of interest (in favour of the text as published by AK). However, within that, it looks reliable to me because:
- AK Press displays editorial oversight, "Decisions at AK Press are made collectively, from what we publish, to what we distribute and how we structure our labor." per About AK Press
But, treat the work as a work of opinion, not of scholastic fact. "According to Foo, ...". Glad he finally got around to publishing that in a reviewed form. Remember when citing, that you can only cite the AK Press edition, the Infoshop edition hasn't been subject to editorial review. (A similar issue has repeatedly come up with the right-winger's use of materials, RS in one press, Unreliable in another). Fifelfoo ( talk) 21:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Dear L3lackEyedAngels
I have responded with some thoughts on the use of word 'allegedly' in HBGary article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:HBGary i would like to know your opinion. thanks. Decora ( talk) 17:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
No i just wanted to see how long it would stay up for. Awooooga22 ( talk) 21:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi L3lackEyedAngels. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for
speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for [[:
WP:CSD]], a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the
suggested tasks for patrollers and review the
criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering
non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with
proposed deletion,
proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate
deletion discussion. Looked unintentional, please be more careful.
Syrthiss (
talk) 18:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I accept the move you made of the crucial phrase re meat eaters. Thanks for responding amicably to my deletion!
TonyClarke ( talk) 15:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- NP. The information in the reference was useful and well sourced so I shouldn't have cast it away on the outset. I'm glad we could improve the article. KLP ( talk) 15:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Byelf2007 ( talk) 25 March 2012
- I agree that he is a troll, but do we have to go through official channels to deal with him? Can't we just not feed him anymore? KLP ( talk) 12:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase
Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
File:Hbgary logo.jpg missing description details
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot ( error?) 10:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Hi L3lackEyedAngels,
The Bitcoin article contains a reference to Satoshi's original Bitcoin whitepaper, dated to May 24 2009. However, this paper was in fact published on Nov 1 2008. I traced this reference and found that the introduction of the erroneous 5.24.2009 date was in this edit of yours.
For curiosity's sake, can you say where did this date come from?
Thanks. -- Meni Rosenfeld ( talk) 21:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I do not remember. I feel like I would have gotten it from the actual white paper. KLP ( talk) 14:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
_by_Ron.jpg)
Thanks for pointing out the policy on proper SIC quote usage.
Boxofmatches (
talk) 20:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Silk Road Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)