BitCoin Wikipedia page DELETED!!!

[kiba]

An external discussion where you encourage each other to go and take action on wikipedia and then that happens is against wikipedia rules. No paranoia needed. And a discussion in which you call me an "ice-hole" meaning ass-hole is just amusing to me.

No, no, and no. We're just letting this deletion discussion run it course.

[Polargeo]

Yes. That is fine. The pile on at wikipedia is not fine. Please understand that. Wikipedia is not there to promote your favourite e-currency.

[kiba]

Yes. That is fine. The pile on at wikipedia is not fine. Please understand that. Wikipedia is not there to promote your favourite e-currency.

Yeah, you don't have to tell us. A couple of Wikipedians in this community told us that to get included in wikipedia, we must be "notable", which mean newspaper, academic source, etc al.

[davout]

Yes. That is fine. The pile on at wikipedia is not fine. Please understand that. Wikipedia is not there to promote your favourite e-currency.

People write articles about what they care for.
If it wasn't the case I doubt it would have very much content.

[Polargeo]

Actually a lot of people care about the non-commercial no profit organisation wikipedia and the free sharing of quality information. I think take the number of people who care about bitcoin and multiply it by 1000000 and you are in the right ball park. actually 10000000 or even 100000000 might be a more acurate order of magnitude.

[kiba]

Actually a lot of people care about the non-commercial no profit organisation wikipedia and the free sharing of quality information. I think take the number of people who care about bitcoin and multiply it by 1000000 and you are in the right ball park.

Dude, just be objective and do your job instead of being paranoid about a secret conspiracy by bitcoiners. You do realize that Bitcoin already received media coverage by PcWorld, IrishTime, and ComputerworldUk?

If that doesn't make Bitcoin notable, I don't know what will.

[Polargeo]

It makes bitcoin notable enough to have an article and I have said as much on wikipedia. If I was still an admin I would have put it back in the mainspace already. It is fairly obvious that the bitcoin media scrum took advantage of the wikileaks story to get a one off article in the major newspapers. That makes it notable enough for a wikipedia article. Please stop your socking on wikipedia that is all I ask.  However, trade in all of the bitcoins in existance and you wouldn't be able to buy my uncle's house.

[davout]

Actually a lot of people care about the non-commercial no profit organisation wikipedia and the free sharing of quality information. I think take the number of people who care about bitcoin and multiply it by 1000000 and you are in the right ball park. actually 10000000 or even 100000000 might be a more acurate order of magnitude.

Nobody cares whether wikipedia is more popular than bitcoin.

Please stop your socking on wikipedia that is all I ask.

Feel free to leave if you dislike what is being said here.

However, trade in all of the bitcoins in existance and you wouldn't be able to buy my uncle's house.

Again, nobody cares.

[kiba]

Please stop your socking on wikipedia that is all I ask.  However, trade in all of the bitcoins in existance and you wouldn't be able to buy my uncle's house.

ROFL. You think we are secretly sockpuppetting accounts on wikipedia. That is paranoia, pure and simple.

If you EVER BOTHER[edit] to read the discussion here on the forum, you would realize that the founder of the community DO NOT LIKE being associated with wikileak. That shut down the discussion of getting wikileak to accept bitcoin donation. Of course, that was moot. The gossip mills spread too far from our control.

This. Is. Hilarious.

[davout]

This. Is. Hilarious.

No. http://tinyurl.com/2ee2u2x

[Polargeo]

Please stop your socking on wikipedia that is all I ask.  However, trade in all of the bitcoins in existance and you wouldn't be able to buy my uncle's house.

ROFL. You think we are secretly sockpuppetting accounts on wikipedia. That is paranoia, pure and simple.

If you EVER BROTHER to read the discussion here on the forum, you would realize that the founder of the community DO NOT LIKE being associated with wikileak. That shut down the discussion of getting wikileak to accept bitcoin donation. Of course, that was moot. The gossip mills spread too far from our control.

This. Is. Hilarious.

If you ever brother to write English properly you can lecture me on brothering to read a discussion.

[kiba]

If you ever brother to write English properly you can lecture me on brothering to read a discussion.

Oh please, you're the one wasting time here.

[mpkomara]

request to lock thread

[davout]

If you ever brother to write English properly you can lecture me on brothering to read a discussion.

Please leave.

[davout]

Not quite. I've written some articles I care not for because either:
- Make Wikipedia better.
- Practise my writing skills.
- Other reasons (helping someone, another project).

That's very honorable, but I still think it's not the case for a vast majority. Just my opinion tho, I don't have any numbers to support that

And there was a lot of off-wiki canvassing it seems on that Bitcoin article which might've hindered the process. Imagine you're an editor and request AfD. The page is filled with opposes and you check their contributions. Most are new accounts. I'd myself conclude SPA.

Polargeo sounds super paranoid. Probably a bit stupid.

I have no idea about the meaning of your acronyms 
Anyway, I think things tend to sort themselves out when left to mature for a little bit. 

[kiba]

Most are new accounts. I'd myself conclude SPA.

So I was wrong. These are well meaning bitcoiners who don't know much about the bureaucratic process try to get bitcoin up. That hinder our credibility. Even so, I think you have to concede that there isn't a concerted effort by mass of bitcoiners to try to get the article re-listed.

* kiba feels a bit foolish sometime.

[FreddyFender]

I'm a Newbie and amazed by what I am seeing. Something new under the sun! Let wikipedia rant (I like their new header), wikileaks is irrelevant and once we hit 350gh? the chain is unhackable by anything less then quantum cryptology.
We should get small tantalizing bits of info out in the form of videos and posts other than here. Wikipedia will seem small potato soon enough.

[S3052]

Freddy. Now we are talking.

Let's forget about all those debates and bring bitcoin forward.

The time spent on this debate thread could have been invested in spreading / driving / promoting bitcoins.

[FreddyFender]

I think my flash skills will come in handy. 45 second blurbs about bitcoin and his maddening adventures. I'll be posting a storyboard shortly to:
 http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=697.0
 

[Anonymous]

Is it notable that the person who deleted the article came to the forum and trolled it?