|
607
|
Other / Meta / Re: Need explanation from moderator who deleted my post (2) 4 days ago
|
on: July 28, 2018, 08:57:26 AM
|
I did go through the report logs and while someone did report your post (and it's marked as handled), it seems like not only your post, but the entire thread was deleted alongside it. Not sure how post notifications work when a thread is deleted instead of trashed but maybe it's sent out on thread deletion (=/= thread trashing) as well. The thread you're linking to is a newer one.
It is not new thread. Take a look, post was right between these two posts http://prntscr.com/kc18nc archived again here http://archive.is/vkJiW , and this is thread with my post in it https://archive.is/2wDMN also thread is still under this number 4723436.0 so it is the same thread. If that's the case, not really sure why it got deleted. The only report that seems to be related to the situation is pointing to a deleted thread. I'd PM Cyrus about recovering the deleted post, but it seems like you've already reposted it. |
|
|
|
|
608
|
Other / Meta / Re: Need explanation from moderator who deleted my post (2) 4 days ago
|
on: July 27, 2018, 11:32:54 PM
|
Been (and kind of still am) a bit ill over the past few days so haven't had the energy to answer PMs.
Since my memory is shaky when it comes to most moderated content and there are several active global mods moderating the forum, I can neither confirm or deny I deleted the post. I did go through the report logs and while someone did report your post (and it's marked as handled), it seems like not only your post, but the entire thread was deleted alongside it. Not sure how post notifications work when a thread is deleted instead of trashed but maybe it's sent out on thread deletion (=/= thread trashing) as well. The thread you're linking to is a newer one.
Also, seems like whoever handled the report, marked a duplicate report from a user as valid, which makes me believe I wasn't the one who deleted it (I use a script that highlights duplicates).
I just have one question: Had the thread not been crashed, and someone had reported marlboroza's post, would it be deleted? Is it considered to be off-topic or not? Warning users that a project is a scam is not off-topic. Posting the same thing to several threads might be considered multi-posting / duplicate posting ( especially if the threads said duplicate posts were posted in are about the same project). |
|
|
|
|
609
|
Other / Meta / Re: Need explanation from moderator who deleted my post (2) 4 days ago
|
on: July 27, 2018, 11:05:49 PM
|
|
Been (and kind of still am) a bit ill over the past few days so haven't had the energy to answer PMs.
Since my memory is shaky when it comes to most moderated content and there are several active global mods moderating the forum, I can neither confirm or deny I deleted the post. I did go through the report logs and while someone did report your post (and it's marked as handled), it seems like not only your post, but the entire thread was deleted alongside it. Not sure how post notifications work when a thread is deleted instead of trashed but maybe it's sent out on thread deletion (=/= thread trashing) as well. The thread you're linking to is a newer one.
Also, seems like whoever handled the report, marked a duplicate report from a user as valid, which makes me believe I wasn't the one who deleted your post (I use a script that highlights duplicates) and AFAIK I haven't deleted (not trashed) any threads at least in the past week.
|
|
|
|
|
611
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Wikipedia suppression of cryptocurrencies
|
on: July 26, 2018, 05:13:49 PM
|
-quote snip- Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. As all encyclopedias, it doesn't try to document every single thing about the world - it picks a barrier of entry and documents anything that's above it. Considering that the entire thing is run by mostly regular people (with a relatively small number of actual employees for a website this size), is free to submit to and access, doesn't have ads (runs off of donations) and is the number 5 most visited website in the world (according to https://www.alexa.com/topsites), I'd say that they're completely justified to document only the coins that have gained considerable amount of attention since every article not only takes up space but requires active contributors to maintain and, more importantly, moderate. Wikipedia doesn't own any cryptocurrency the right to free promotion. If it can't take off on it's own, maybe it wasn't really that amazing in the first place. If you want a more traditional comparison, just because Wikipedia has an article on Coca-Cola, doesn't mean it has to have an article on every Coca-Cola inspired drink. They might include come similarly tasting drinks that have gained substantial popularity (like Pepsi), but including "Ivan's Rad Cola" (that's only sold in several towns in Siberia and made by a guy in his shed) just cause "mah entrepreneurship" doesn't make any sense. Also, just cause you dislike Ripple doesn't change the fact that it's the number 3 coin in terms of marketcap (according to https://coinmarketcap.com/) clearly making it popular enough to have an article of it on Wikipedia. wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, everyone is allowed to add a piece of information to it, basically all of the established alts and bitcoin were added into wikipedia by its developers, same should be the case for following cryptocurrencies. open financial market means open, Yes, it's an open encyclopedia with rules. One of which is the requirement for the article's subject to be somewhat popular. Not everyone is allowed to participate either - if you get banned / blacklisted for breaking the rules, you can no longer participate. You seem to have a skewed perspective of what "open market" means - it doesn't mean that Wikipedia must list any coin in existence, it means you are free to go to start your own wiki website (you can even use Wikipedia's script: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki) and list all the coins you want. The Internet is open and free. Singular services or websites have no obligation to adhere to the same principles. Some may do so to a certain degree but they are not obliged to host any content they don't want. And having a minimum popularity requirement IMO is completely reasonable. |
|
|
|
|
612
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Wikipedia suppression of cryptocurrencies
|
on: July 26, 2018, 04:09:36 PM
|
AFAIK Wikipedia has guidelines for what can get it's own article. One of which would be popularity - be it through renown or notoriety. Considering that the coin in question is not in the top 100 in terms of marketcap (at least according to Coinmarketcap) nor is it even close (at the time of writing it's on the 450th spot), that's probably the reason your article got removed.
That or the fact that at least the first few sections of the article read like an ad for the coin (albeit trying to look like objective article). The rest of the article is "meh" and IMO would have to go through quite a bit of editing to make it worthy of getting it on the site.
This right here, they're not going to let people plague Wikipedia with shitcoins to be able to peddle their own shitcoin to people. I don't really care what anyone in edu says about Wikipedia, but if there is an article about something on there I do give the topic some credibility as I do think that people peer-reviewing things give the topic some substance. So, they're not suppressing crypto -- they're suppressing some random shitcoins that really don't even deserve to have a Wikipedia article. It's like posting a high school actors credentials for a biography on the site not needed and wasting peoples resources. nope wrong, these "shitcoins" are simply other cryptocurrencies, there is no reason to protect and empower the established bitcoin sect. money of the people, means money of the people, not supporting the bitcoinsect. I don't think they care about protecting "the established bitcoin sect" - they just have basic standards for objectivity and popularity. If there's very few people actually visiting the Wikipedia article (and the subject of the article doesn't have any significant popularity off-site or offline either) or it's worded as an ad, I see no reason why they're obliged to keep it on the site. Hell, if we start allowing random altcoins to have their article, why not get a Wikipedia page for every person in the world who wants one. In a perfect world where everyone is objective (or the mods are omnipotent beings operating on a different plane of existence, capable of modding billions of articles at the same time) and physical resources (storage space, bandwidth, CPU power, etc.) can scale to infinity with zero to very little extra cost, that might be possible. However, we do not live in a perfect world. nope they are not because with the surpression of new articles they actively surpress the enterpreneuership of others, empowering the establishement basically the same like the banksters did with their billionaires. bitcoin also was surpressed by the banking cartels, and their definition, shouldnt be a different for new cryptocurrencies then. when someone creates a cryptocurrency its also his right to name it that way, no point privileging someone, especially since this is a decentralisation movement. if wikipedia wants to be neutral than they should rather remove all cryptocurrencies and not support the early established ones. or be corrupted by ripple and the bankster projects that throw around with money. to get their articles listed. would be better to update wikipedias public image then, as a more private, more selfcentric, corrupt community and not an altruistic one. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. As all encyclopedias, it doesn't try to document every single thing about the world - it picks a barrier of entry and documents anything that's above it. Considering that the entire thing is run by mostly regular people (with a relatively small number of actual employees for a website this size), is free to submit to and access, doesn't have ads (runs off of donations) and is the number 5 most visited website in the world (according to https://www.alexa.com/topsites), I'd say that they're completely justified to document only the coins that have gained considerable amount of attention since every article not only takes up space but requires active contributors to maintain and, more importantly, moderate. Wikipedia doesn't own any cryptocurrency the right to free promotion. If it can't take off on it's own, maybe it wasn't really that amazing in the first place. If you want a more traditional comparison, just because Wikipedia has an article on Coca-Cola, doesn't mean it has to have an article on every Coca-Cola inspired drink. They might include come similarly tasting drinks that have gained substantial popularity (like Pepsi), but including "Ivan's Rad Cola" (that's only sold in several towns in Siberia and made by a guy in his shed) just cause "mah entrepreneurship" doesn't make any sense. Also, just cause you dislike Ripple doesn't change the fact that it's the number 3 coin in terms of marketcap (according to https://coinmarketcap.com/) clearly making it popular enough to have an article of it on Wikipedia. |
|
|
|
|
613
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Wikipedia suppression of cryptocurrencies
|
on: July 26, 2018, 01:39:06 PM
|
AFAIK Wikipedia has guidelines for what can get it's own article. One of which would be popularity - be it through renown or notoriety. Considering that the coin in question is not in the top 100 in terms of marketcap (at least according to Coinmarketcap) nor is it even close (at the time of writing it's on the 450th spot), that's probably the reason your article got removed.
That or the fact that at least the first few sections of the article read like an ad for the coin (albeit trying to look like objective article). The rest of the article is "meh" and IMO would have to go through quite a bit of editing to make it worthy of getting it on the site.
This right here, they're not going to let people plague Wikipedia with shitcoins to be able to peddle their own shitcoin to people. I don't really care what anyone in edu says about Wikipedia, but if there is an article about something on there I do give the topic some credibility as I do think that people peer-reviewing things give the topic some substance. So, they're not suppressing crypto -- they're suppressing some random shitcoins that really don't even deserve to have a Wikipedia article. It's like posting a high school actors credentials for a biography on the site not needed and wasting peoples resources. nope wrong, these "shitcoins" are simply other cryptocurrencies, there is no reason to protect and empower the established bitcoin sect. money of the people, means money of the people, not supporting the bitcoinsect. I don't think they care about protecting "the established bitcoin sect" - they just have basic standards for objectivity and popularity. If there's very few people actually visiting the Wikipedia article (and the subject of the article doesn't have any significant popularity off-site or offline either) or it's worded as an ad, I see no reason why they're obliged to keep it on the site. Hell, if we start allowing random altcoins to have their article, why not get a Wikipedia page for every person in the world who wants one. In a perfect world where everyone is objective (or the mods are omnipotent beings operating on a different plane of existence, capable of modding billions of articles at the same time) and physical resources (storage space, bandwidth, CPU power, etc.) can scale to infinity with zero to very little extra cost, that might be possible. However, we do not live in a perfect world. |
|
|
|
|
614
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Wikipedia suppression of cryptocurrencies
|
on: July 25, 2018, 10:29:01 PM
|
AFAIK Wikipedia has guidelines for what can get it's own article. One of which would be popularity - be it through renown or notoriety. Considering that the coin in question is not in the top 100 in terms of marketcap (at least according to Coinmarketcap) nor is it even close (at the time of writing it's on the 450th spot), that's probably the reason your article got removed.
That or the fact that at least the first few sections of the article read like an ad for the coin (albeit trying to look like objective article). The rest of the article is "meh" and IMO would have to go through quite a bit of editing to make it worthy of getting it on the site.
I thought I was being pretty objective. how should I have stated it? Looking at your avatar, you seem to be invested or at least interested in the coin. What you type out might look objective to you but to the outside observer (e.g. me) quite a few of your statements reek of positive bias (e.g. intro paragraph's "too fast" comment as well as the proof being a Reddit post with one reply and 2 upvotes, the entirety of the "Mission" section, other sections worded as promotional statements, etc.). As Spendulus pointed out, get someone who's not invested or interested in the coin (and preferably isn't a close friend or isn't afraid to speak their mind to someone they're close with) and has a generally good grasp of the English language, buy him lunch and ask him to list out all the specific issues in the article in terms of bias, language, structure, etc. That or just shelve the article and come back to it when the coin has become more famous cause I really doubt it'll get past the "popularity" requirement at the moment. |
|
|
|
|
615
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: Why won't ETH network accept equivalence of the token in question for gas?
|
on: July 24, 2018, 09:51:53 PM
|
|
Because ERC20 is just a technical standard for smart contracts that behave as coins (a.k.a. tokens). In the end, any transfers of said tokens is simply execution of smart contract function calls (that usually update a ledger with token balances). While most implementations of ERC20 are either the same or extremely similar, I bet there's hundreds of ERC20 tokens that are outright broken. They have all the functions the ERC20 standard requires - the implementations of these functions though don't do what they're supposed to (e.g. consume all gas by throwing an exception on any function call, transfer coins to a random / different / owners address, etc.).
You are free to manually come to an agreement with a miner that will mine your zero-fee (in terms of ETH) transaction for ERC20 tokens you've sent him beforehand, however, unless you're going to severely overpay the fee with whatever token you're paying in, most miners won't give a damn. Ether in Ethereum was created as a single currency to pay miners for their work. It "fuels" (hence gas and the cost of said gas being in Ether) the entire network. Having a contract function execution fueled by function executions in arbitrary, unaudited contracts would introduce a myriad of problems to solve, alongside the already existing issues Ethereum faces.
|
|
|
|
|
616
|
Other / Politics & Society / Re: Wikipedia suppression of cryptocurrencies
|
on: July 24, 2018, 05:49:15 PM
|
|
AFAIK Wikipedia has guidelines for what can get it's own article. One of which would be popularity - be it through renown or notoriety. Considering that the coin in question is not in the top 100 in terms of marketcap (at least according to Coinmarketcap) nor is it even close (at the time of writing it's on the 450th spot), that's probably the reason your article got removed.
That or the fact that at least the first few sections of the article read like an ad for the coin (albeit trying to look like objective article). The rest of the article is "meh" and IMO would have to go through quite a bit of editing to make it worthy of getting it on the site.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
