User talk:Wuerzele/ archive box 2014

Liikanen report

Thank you for the barnstar, but it is you who should be thanked for your work on Liikanen report. I wonder if you may be able to help contextualise that report in light of the current Cypriot crisis. If you are interested, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics#Cypriot crisis terminology and topics and Talk:2012–2013 Cypriot financial crisis#Eurogroup deal. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation.Wuerzele (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Hello! I've replied to your concerns at Talk:Global financial system. Regards, Meclee (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

USIC: Etymology and criticism/satire as a minor edit?

I edited the etymology section of US Intel community. The citation you had used was factually wrong and opinion pieces are probably not the best place to find encyclopedic content. I also noticed that you inserted the criticism/satire section into the US Intel community and marked it as a "minor edit." Please see WP:MINOR the insertion of an entirely new section does not count as a "superficial change." DouglasCalvert (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi DouglasCalvert, Thanks for your comment and the reprimand not to use "minor edit" for the insertion of a section. Thanks also for inserting an Intel reference for the etymology. I don't see where my citation was "factually wrong" however, since the term intelligence community may well have been created in the 50's, but wasnt popular in the 60's. As far as the criticism section: You'll find this kind of section in a lot of wikipedia articles. I understand this appears to rub you the wrong way, but even encyclopedias will bring controversial opinions side by side. I will reinsert the section and if you don't like it, I request discussion on the talk page instead of deleting - at least one other user is of the same opinion as myself. --Wuerzele (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not bothered by the criticism/satire section. I was botherd by the fact you marked it a minor edit. Someone else removed it.DouglasCalvert (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin article lead

"encyclopedias can, and often should use terms that arent in a source, to better explain, and illustrate a subject, in this case this peculiar act of "finding" of a new string of info that justifies the minting of a new unit of currency" - right you are, I was just afraid (as you correctly guessed) that it could mislead some people to think that it is bitcoins that are being found, when, in fact, what is being found is a cryptographic nonce serving as a proof of (search) work. Discussing proof of work, I miss a paragraph describing the proof of work since it is a significant invention serving at least two purposes:

• technical, to help to solve the byzantine generals problem allowing to get around the need for a payment center
• economical, to ensure that new bitcoins cannot be obtained (created) without spending some significant work (this is a feature no fiat currency has, for fiat currency the work needed to create new banknotes and coins is, in fact, insignificant)

" i did an overhaul of the page from a formal language, organizing, and communication perspective, and really wanting to leave content alone" - In my opinion your contribution and improvement to the article is significant, which also influences the quality of contents even if the actual contents look unchanged. Thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ladislav Mecir, thanks for your reply. looks like both capos, fleetham and chrisarnesen dont agree with my copy editing, bit me, newcomer-to-the-site, not a good sign. - thanks for pointing out the two so far unmentioned issues regarding bitcoin minting. 1) proof-of-work gets around the two-generals-problem of a payment center since Hal Finley's invention, right? so link to it? 2) i agree no fiat currency uses proof-of-work, although the proof-of-work feature isnt novel and was inherent in historic precious metal standards. agree w you these 2 aspects of proof-of-work are missing on the bitcoin page, although they're sort of implied on bitcoin network,where most if not all of one's technical questions can be answered because it is:Talk:bitcoin network#The majority of this article is copied word-for-word from Satoshi's original Bitcoin paper. ! if one takes an hour or two.....! IMO bitcoincontains too much secondary stuff, like the sections upon sections of legal stuff/criminal activity (which is why reader comments said "too negative"). BTW: Have you ever seen any illustrations of proof-of-work or even the whole transaction-minting-broadcast cycle?? i have seen the 2 figures on bitcoin network but neither is it. i have an image in mind, but unless i draw it, scan it and upload it .... customer pays money-->nonce generated at network portal of entry -->nonce returned to customer/ customer-address with timestamp and balance with a pair of keys (public key to encrypt, private key to decrypt); nonce enters and circulates network-->nonce is discovered by node in computer farm (and then what, exactly? whats the check off mark/ change/metabolism,that takes the nonce out of the circuit, so that no other farm can claim it?)-->node adds nonce to ledger--> laterna magica:out pops the currency? -->new ledger version is broadcast to network. -------theoretically any or all of these steps are subject to forgery, but at different odds, and IMO potential for forgery or failure should be a new subsection. anyhow, you obviously are a content expert. let's tackle it, there must be some literature about it. i'll move discussion to talk:bitcoin and see what others know and think. Dobré ráno, if you indeed live in Semily; here the sun has just set, --Wuerzele (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Děkuji (thank you). Not from Semily, (how did you come to that city? you may have found a distant relative of mine's address) but close - Liberec. Regarding pictures - I did not find any I would want to see in the article, but it may be just me (I often come along without illustrations, find them misleading in some cases). Re nonce: I meant the nonce used in the newly created block. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav jste vítáni and Dobré ráno again. -No sweat (re no picture of Bitcoining); i saw several in the speech of FinCEMs director, but all bad. Liberec looks swell, closest i've ever been was Gӧrlitz in 1990, and Praha, 1980?, another time more, im falling asleep and have to get up early tomorrow.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin

Quick apologies for any anger I may have caused you in reverting your edits. I understand you see reverting a large edit with a small error as a lack of consideration on my part. I think Wikipedia would work better if everyone was a bit more considerate, so please accept my apologies in this instance. Fleetham (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin page reply

You sent me a message on March 12. My reply is here. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Virtual currency

Good job on the new article! Please note the relevant URL is missing from the final reference. Please add it (and a link to an archive copy) else change the template name away from <ref>{{cite web. -- 79.67.241.244 (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham's disruptive editing reported (deleted on his talk page)

I wrote this on his talk page,which Fleetham deleted. Since it may prevent other editors from reaching consensus I will post this on my page.

Please stop your disruptive editing at Bitcoin. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. I've known you only since Febr 28, 2014, but your behavior has been totally unacceptable. It is hostile and disruptive. Today, coming to your talkpage for the first time, I see that you actually have a track record of this and I wouldnt be surprised if its an 8 year long history. These 15 user comments over less than 6 months express what I experienced:

• You have undone eight months of changes with the simple comment of "restore". Aug 2013. Ttwaring
• Your edit summary appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Last warning for sneaky vandalism. Do this again and you'll find yourself back on the chopping board of ANI, which I've warned you sometime back. August 2013 User:Dave1185
• Any reason you removed 2 Tata Nano Photo without any comment?Ctny
• about your recently somewhat strange editing behaviour: Why you seem to have tried to remove my comment. Sep 2013Thomas.W
• Please stop your disruptive editing. -Sep 2013User:Thomas.W
• Final warning for removing content, with a deliberately misleading edit summary. -Sep 2013 User:Thomas.W
• Bitcoin lede bias re illegitimate uses of Bitcoin -Oct 2013 Orbixx
• Your rewrite of the bitcoin article- asking to reconsider making unilateral sweeping changes that include the wholesale deletion of others' work. Oct 2013 Canton
• Caution for unexplained removal of 6K bytes of content from the article, with a misleading edit summary saying "clarifying".
• Bitcoin Article Edits - a lot of your edits aren't helpful. VinceSamios
• Challenge verifiability on the talk page first instead of summarily removing content. Chris Arnesen . In reply Fleetham promised: In future, I will go looking for sources before I remove anything.(Jan 2014)Mr.choppers said he had explained this "many times in the past".
• Warning : you've used up your three reverts for the day. Feb 2014 Chris Arnesen
• Warning : You're edit warring. Feb 2014 Chris Arnesen
• Cut and paste: a better approach would be to simply modify the language or flag the issue.
• "rearrange new material" in edit summary- euphemism for deleting. 4 April 2014 Richardbondi

You bit me right away when I first arrived on Bitcoin February 28,2014. you have been arrogantly dismissive, measuring me by number of edits. You gave a half-hearted apology and only, when I reacted by saying dont bite the newcomer. After more than one month of highly productive contributions, you still refuse to cooperate, to have faith; you refuse to be genuinely civil and refuse to use netiquette. you refuse to address me by my name or ping me, despite repeated reminders. I find out by deletion messages, that you "responded". you have never thanked me (I have). if you dont delete it first, you question everything I write, and repeatedly ad nauseam, saying you dont understand it.(!) You are not making good efforts to understand a different argument. I can reply and explain and write 3 times and you still insist that you dont understand. whose fault is it? you have made accusations, that are totally untrue ('why must we use "volunteer" ' for example) that are water under the bridge. These are attempts to discredit me. it is slander though. I discipline myself not to respond to such which you have interpreted as “unopposed” in edit summaries! The most disruptive thing is that you continuously revert edits . In the last 24h you have reverted me three times and to me this is edit-war. There is no consensus about your version, yet you think yours is better without saying why. you have repeatedly shown you are unable to edit portions of edits like anybody else.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: Fleetham actually reverted me 4 times , and twice reverted others' faithful edits, totaling 6 in 24h: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] --Wuerzele (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note that Fleetham's BLOCK LOG states clearly that he's been positively blocked once for block evasion, once for breaking the three revert rule and twice for edit-warring. IMO, Wikipedia as a collection of online volunteers working together to write an encyclopedia would be better off without such disruptive individual like him who does nothing but edit-warring whenever his viewpoints are not accepted, instead of working with other editors to resolve the differences. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dave1185: I agree and thank you for your response. when I first read your message from August2013 , I knew you experienced the same, confirming it wasnt a personal issue. Have you read the administrator's response? --Wuerzele (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Please note: an editor is entitled to remove posts from their talk page, and you have also exceeded WP:3RR. Replacing removed comments here could be construed as userspace harassment. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Flat outthank you for your message, for the second time, stranger. Have we met? should i know you ? I dont recall editing with you before. you do not seem to know the context. my above message shows an intention incompatible with WP:harrassment. Whats your intention writing here? One thing is that your "best wishes" have a hollow, if not sarcastic ring, as you appear to construe harrassment.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I edited the article and saw the issues with your edits exceeding 3RR, so I came here to give you a heads up. I then saw this list above which IMHO is userspace harassment, so I again gave you a heads up that WP:HUSH may be an issue. You can ignore it if you wish. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 04:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin

I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out to you, but you exceeded the three revert rule by reverting 4 times within 24 hours on this article. Please read WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 03:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Flat out Thanks for your message. Could you tell me why you chose to place this message here but not post this message on Fleetham's talk page?--Wuerzele (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Wuerzele , they already received a warning and a report. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"Generally accepted definition"

Hi, I am not a native speaker as you already know. Reading the formulation: "Although it does not meet the generally recognized definition of money, the digital currency created and used in the system is alternatively referred to as a virtual currency, electronic money, or cryptocurrency." by Fleetham in the Bitcoin article, I have got a couple of questions:

• Does this formulation look "normal" to English native speakers? (to me it looks rather clumsy)
• I am unsure what exactly does "generally accepted" mean. Does it admit the existence and acceptance of other definitions, like the legal definition, the Austrian definition, etc.?

Hope you do not mind me asking. Thanks Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Ladislav thanks for your message, of course I don't mind. i think the sentence is "acceptable"/normal in English. But I agree, it is clumsy. Clarity, brevity, terseness aren't Fleethams strengths (and as you know he calls my criticism personal attack- after others criticized him too, he insinuated they were my sockpuppets !) as far as what "generally accepted" means: it means nothing specific; it is something like "what does the man in the street think." something you cant reference. -BTW may I aslk you if you speak any other languages? you dont have to answer, i know you arent putting it up on your talkpage, i could try to explain in another language, except Czech. note that your quote was actually "generally recognized", which is not a standing expression, with a small semantic difference from accepted, recognition being less strong than acceptance, being more cautious. anyway, I think you are not missing anything in translation. the sentence does not sound helpful as written. i've been distracted from editing, my son's birthday tomorrow. take care.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, when the "although..." part was written at the end, the sentence looked less clumsy to me. I am not sure some other language (like German, e.g.) would be worth your effort (my knowledge of German is rather limited, and my French is very weak). I find the present formulation a worthy candidate for copyedit. I noticed that you wrote a list of reverts, which F. deleted as "personal attack", and another editor restored. This is really strange.

My confusion of "generally recognized" and "generally accepted" - indeed, I somehow missed the difference, but now, pointing it out, you help me to see it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Diphenylamine

Just curious about your many edits on this article. Is there some problem emerging with diphenylamine? --Smokefoot (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Smokefoot. An EWG “pesticide in foods report” came out. The pro-pesticide Alliance for Food and Farming, public relations arm of industrial agriculture, responded to it with the claim that EWG is trying to scare consumers into not eating apples. I wanted to know what's behind diphenylamine and since there wasn't any tox or regul. info on teh page (as on most chem pages…) I made the changes. If you look at page views, you’ll see that it was up before I started editing, people were looking for info, and increased since.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

NBMI

Hi Wuerzele. I noticed that you recently created NBMI, but an article about that chemical compound already exists at BDTH2. Do you think you could merge your content into that article? Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Ed, thanks for pointing this out. Of course I will merge. Please help with your chemistry expertise:

Which term do you think should remain: NBMI, the one more "recently" used, which prompted me to write it after reading about it in C&EN, or BDTH2 ?

I've never merged an article before, thank you.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

BDTH2 seems to be a more common name, as far as I can tell, so maybe it is best to stick with that. If you need specific help with the merge, please just let me know. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin transaction fees

Hi, I recently added a ref. (before reading your talk page edit). The implications are:

• I am not sure what exactly you prefer, but hope I did not make it problematic for you to eventually make the change(s) you wanted to make
• The quoted text from the source is not ideal to verify the formulation at the specific place, a different quote from the same source for the new purpose may be preferable Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav thanks for the message. i assume you mean the ref Kroll, Davey and Felten? cool. sounds good. adding a source is great, thanks, makes nothing problematic for me (?). i dont prefer one term for the fee over another; I merely wanted the generic term fee to accurately represent the source, thats why i had edited. and i want sources that represent reality as accurately as possible. so that's good.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I also noticed you mentioning 'the murky "transaction fee" term'. My opinion is that the "Economics of Bitcoin..." source defines "transaction fee" pretty well, making it a comprehensively defined 'terminus technicus'. If anything is "murky", I would say it is the term "transaction costs" proposed by MonteDaCunca - there is only a single definition used only in a single source (article); moreover, the author admits that he may be mistaken to define the notion at all, since the "costs" are not transaction fees. Also, the notion of "merchant fees" is problematic, since that is a matter of the decision the merchant makes. If the merchant uses the services of a specific bitcoin payment administrator like Coinbase, the merchant fees depend on the conditions offered to the merchant by the administrator, and the fees may significantly differ; yet another feasible option for the merchant is to not use services of any payment administrator, processing the payments on his own. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav agree the term is less murky now.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your commentary on my editing

Greetings Wuerzele. So that I don't detract from the discussion at Talk:Fiat money, I'd like to address your most recent reply in which you call my editing and my attempts at discussion into question.

1. I am not used to the pinging feature as it was introduced at a time during which I was very busy with work and not very attentive on Wikipedia. I frankly didn't even know how it works, or that you have to type the link to a user's page. I also assumed you would likely be monitoring the article talk page on your watchlist since the discussion has been very active today.
2. You state that my reply is unconstructive because it "dwells on Krugman quotes" - but, the very crux of the dispute happens to be a Krugman quote that you insist on including in the article as a definition. So shouldn't that be the focus of the debate? I demonstrated that it is not a consensus definition and is not even the definition used in his scholarly work (and as I linked you to the Identifying reliable sources page, scholarly publications take precedence over news media). This means that Krugman's text books and journal articles are better sources than his Business Insider interview. "Backed by men with guns" is nothing more than a facetious remark made off hand by Krugman to compare the legitimacy of fiat currency with that of bitcoin.
3. I did actually read everything you wrote. I feel that I responded to each of the key issues that you raised. I actually spent about 40 minutes crafting my response. To your point (a), I asked why the semantics of how a government enforces its laws ("men with guns") is important beyond just explaining to the reader that fiat money is recognized and backed by government? To your point (b), I did not really speak to this one because I never accused you of, or assumed that you were, attempting to push a POV; I merely mentioned that the quote, asbent the rest of what Krugman says in the interview, could (in my opinion) give the appearance to a reader that being backed by government or coercion of law is a bad thing. I also did not respond to the part about removing the content, because Volunteer Marek reverted your edit, not I. I thought the content was rightfully challenged, but I have had no hand in continuing to remove it. Although, the WP:BRD cycle suggests to Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made. When the discussion has improved understanding, attempt a new edit that may be acceptable to all participants in the discussion. I do not feel that we have reached an improved understanding yet, so I do think it was a bit early of you to insert the content again (which I see Marek has yet again reverted). To your point (c), you said I did not answer your question about what the context of Krugman's quote was. I feel that I explained the context by writing the next several statements made by Krugman in the Business Insider interview. If you had questions about what I wrote, that's one thing, but you said that I didn't answer that question at all, and I disagree. My answer may not have been the best, but I did make an effort to provide one.
4. Please understand that I was not trying to condescend or appear arrogant when I suggested you take another look at one of my previous replies. I was attempting to be very plain and clear that I really did feel like I explained the full context by bringing attention to the full statements made by Krugman in the interview.
5. I don't know what to say in response to your view that I am trying to stonewall the dispute. I certainly don't have that intention and I feel like I have made a good faith effort to explain why I challenge the content's inclusion. You apparently disagree and have expressed that you think I'm not helping. I simply think I have made a compelling case that the quote by Krugman is just a facetious off-hand remark made in an interview to illustrate a point about bitcoin, not to explain fiat currency. I also think that I've made a compelling case that, if we want to include some Krugman content in the definition section, there are better sources in which he gives a proper explanation (those that I listed on the talk page). You have not convinced me otherwise, and by extension have not convinced me that we have a need to compromise in such a way as to have the quote included in the article. There is not always a balance to be struck. I really do think that if you were to open a Request for Comment or ask for input on perhaps the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, that my arguments would stand up to the scrutiny of other editors.
6. Regarding global financial system, I'm quite certain that I only ever removed your edits that were citing IMFSite.org, which is not a reliable source. To your credit, however, I did take the intent of your edits to heart, especially the Stiglitz content (which I kept, but expanded and improved the prose) and I listened to your suggestions on the need to expand the article's coverage of criticisms/reform efforts (which I think it now does much better, with a much longer coverage of reform efforts). In fact, I consider the current iteration of the article to be a marked improvement over the derelict state it was in last June before I took it on as a personal project, although it is by no means perfect or finished. I have poured a lot of effort into that article, so I am disappointed to hear someone say that I have "sanitized [the article] to death." All I can say to that is that I have not edited it with any agenda (other than the transparent roadmap I laid out on the talk page), I have only edited it to reflect what is in the sources I've read.
7. Regarding your view that the semantics of how a government enforces laws to support the official role of a fiat currency, you did explain that you see it as being relevant because a fiat currency "feels different under different governments, a dictatorship, for example." However, you have not explained how. How does a fiat currency "feel" different? You never gave examples or more detail. I am indeed a U.S. citizen, but I have very close friends and former co-workers who live in Venezuela, for example. I know of some things the government does to manage its exchange rate, for example. My good friend could only exchange so many bolivares for U.S. dollars, I think up to $3,000 USD (this was in 2011), which caused him some issues paying his rent in New York City when he and I were interns together at the United Nations. That's certainly a limitation a government might impose on its citizens, but it's to do with capital flow & foreign exchange controls, not that the currency is fiat. A government could impose (and, in history, some indeed have) those kinds of controls even with a commodity-backed currency. Beyond that personal knowledge, no, I don't know what it feels like to live in nations with less-than-desirable governments. However, I am a passport-carrying American with a strong interest in someday living abroad to undertake economics research in developing countries throughout sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia Pacific. So if you think that I am narrow-minded (which you stated), culturally isolated, or otherwise attempting to promote a Western or North American bias in articles like Global financial system, then all I can ask is that you reconsider. In my immediate vicinity (South Texas), it is quite rare to find someone with outward-looking interests and a desire to connect with our fellow global citizens.

I hope this helps to at least clarify what my thoughts have been during this dispute. John Shandy` • talk 06:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on important issue in Fractional Reserve Banking

Hi, I am just reaching out to a few people that have previously made edits related to fractional reserve banking. There is an important issue being discussed on the talk page which IMHO needs some neutral opinions. If you could make a comment, that would be much appreciated.Thanks Reissgo (talk) 09:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Reissgo. i had taken fractional reserve banking off my watchlist. have read the talk page. agree this dispute is important to resolve (resembles a discussion i have on fiat money. will weigh in after some reading and thinking. have you asked john shandy? --Wuerzele (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you... No I hadn't contacted John Shandy, but feel uneasy about doing so as I've already been accused of canvassing! If you plan to do some reading, you may want to glance at A brief history of a dispute on Wikipedia's Fractional Reserve Banking page and/or Top 10 documents showing that the description of the monetary system found in most textbooks is wrong Reissgo (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

clarify?

i have not been involved in the back and forth on the "POV" tag on the GSK article. I have not seen you articulate any reason why you see a POV problem. Would you please explain? I'm writing here instead of on the Talk page since your last remark led me to think you may have unwatched it. thanks.Jytdog (talk)

Formulation of a sentence in Bitcoin lead

Hi, my gut feeling is that the sentence "The fact that the bitcoin system is not controlled by a single entity, like a central bank, which has been recognized the US FinCEN." is not exactly how should one formulate sentences in English. Not being a native speaker, I may be wrong. (resembles "Me good human." as far as I am concerned) I assume that you are better at this, that is why I am asking you. Do you think the formulation (disregarding the contents) looks like English? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it got cropped somewhere, its absolutely not a proper sentence [[User:Ladislav Mecir|Ladislav]. I totally agree. I should have changed it, but I didnt want to get into an edit war with Fleetham.--Wuerzele (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you proposed a formulation: "The European Central Bank and the US FinCEN, enforcement arm of the US Treasury, recognize that bitcoin is a decentralized system, where no central monetary authority is involved." I must say that when I proposed my formulation, I was not quite happy with it. I should have given it more thought. My issues with the formulations are:

• The sentence now looks like an advertisement for the ECB and FinCEN, which, purportedly, recognized something. However, the fact is that the institutions did not have to think about it much, since this information is in the bitcoin white paper, and no invention is needed to recognize this. From this point of view the present formulation is better, giving more weight to the decentralized nature of bitcoin than to the information who recognized that bitcoin is decentralized.

yes, the stress needs to be on decentralized and who stated this is to satisfy those who want to know the source.--Wuerzele (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Also, Fleetham seems to prefer the idea that "bitcoin lacks central monetary authority", which is far from the truth, since the property is by design, as the formulation "is designed as a decentralised system where no central monetary authority is involved" demonstrates. I think that the information that this property is by design can be important for some readers, do you see it differently? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

yes, it may be important for some. The term 'lack' is an unfortunate choice. the systems lacks nothing but is what it is. lets take this discussion to the talk page, though.--Wuerzele (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to Comment on Armory (software)

Hello Wuerzele,

I started an article about Armory but practically as soon as I committed my initial content—admittedly a stub but you have to start somewhere—and it was nominated for speedy deletion. Since you've been active in creating content for the bitcoin article I figured you might want to comment. I also plan on creating an article on Dark Wallet, currently it's a redirect to a sub-section of Amir Taaki's Cody Wilson's page, I think. —Wikijeff (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank s for writing, Wikijeff. sorry, I am of no help in the matter. My only advice is to rethink if Armory is really notable. you must come up with third party references, as you know.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of 2,4-D manufacturers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of 2,4-D manufacturers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2,4-D manufacturers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

History of Lego

Hi Wuerzele,

Let me be clearer - you linked a NY Times review. A review by one organization shouldn't be listed on the Lego history article, those individual reviews should be listed on The Lego Movie article. I added the 'critical success' bit because it is factual and stems from multiple reviews. The LA Times didn't give an individual review - read the LAT article and you'll find it just describes the film as having "nearly unanimous positive reviews". That's why I cited it for that sentence. So please move the NYT review to the Lego Movie article and change the History of Lego article back to before your two most recent edits of it.--ɱ (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I agree with your reasoning. Your ref is still there, the "single reviewer ref" not included in teh LAT as far as I saw is also there. If you want, you can change the sequence. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said, the NYT article (being an individual review) has no place on the History of Lego article. It belongs on the The Lego Movie article.--ɱ (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree. It appears as if you do not listen or do not try to understand. To write repeatedly "As I said.." is patronizing. Arguments win and you have not responded to mine. I will cut and paste this to teh talk page, it does not belong here.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I did listen. You kept my reference, and you note that your content isn't written in my reference. How about we settle it this way - leave all critical reviews out of the History of Lego article, and move both over to the proper 'Criticism' section of the film's article. Critical commentary hardly belongs on the History of Lego article anyway. Also I should note, I'm not trying to be patronizing and am saddened that you take it that way. On Wikipedia, there are so many users with so many different levels of understanding that I'll try to be overly explanatory and the likes in order for all to understand more clearly. It may not be the best way of going about things, but it's worked well so far.--ɱ (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin

I would like your input on this, thank you. --Neøn (talk)

Neøn sorry for the late response-- although, oddly, I see no date with your signature. I suppose, that things have resolved.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

SPI

You may be interested in [7]. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ladislav Mecir, I thought that after his first few contributions, amazing how we have patterns, isnt it?--Wuerzele (talk) 04:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort to bring new evidence. I think that when all pieces are put together, there is no space left for doubt that MonteDaCunca and Homni are the same person. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav you are welcome. I'm sorry you've taken all the heat and apologize for not having done this earlier; I saw the SPI headline, didnt look at details, didnt realize you had started it. Honestly thought for a while it was resolved; besides being distracted by hunting for airline tickets to fly home... Only when I started editing from the top of the article yesterday, arriving at the Bitcoin#Classification as money section, I saw the problem is out of control, and put in a nightshift. alas, let's hope Fleetham can join hands in this, and that this nightmare is over soon.--Wuerzele (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Public ledger contents

I like your formulation "would you mind answering my question from 9 days ago?" from the Bitcoin Talk page. The absence of the answer was what stroke my eye immediately when seeing the "Responded" edit you are responding to. I wonder whether there may be any formulation that could help a reader having this level of reading comprehension to understand such a complicated matter as bitcoin. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Coal gasification

Hello, Wuerzele. You have new messages at Beagel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bitcoin "Edit War" August 2014

Good Morning, Wuerzele, I hope you are doing well.

I suppose on the one hand I should've known that reverting Fleetham's reversion was provocative. There was that niggling bit of doubt as to whether I should do it, but I did it. However, I did not and do not intend to start an edit war, and do not intend to participate in one. Consider my advocacy of this particular issue stopped.

I am a professional copyeditor, and to my eye, the line RE: comics was superfluous. I looked at the "In the media" section myself, but at the time decided it was a completely unnecessary bit of information. Perhaps if the comics were better known...

But I wholeheartedly agree to a compromise and the location of the comics line in the "Media" section.

I am relatively new here, and don't get to work on things as much as I'd like, but please know that anything I add, edit or delete, I do so in good faith. Hypnopompus (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message,Hypnopompus, I understand. I even agree... A professional copyeditor ! good to know. I never met one before- may I ask: do you work in news, science, book publishing? you dont have to answer of course.

one hint on communications: if you write {{ and then U |and then the username}} it will show up in that users inbox, no matter on which page/where you write this.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Wuerzele - I work in Numismatics and the coin collecting industry. So I guess that's news and publishing. Speaking of coin collecting, many collectors are intrigued by Bitcoin (especially the bullion crowd) but don't quite know what to make of it. I'm tying to give myself an education as well. Hypnopompus (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks! Hypnopompus--Wuerzele (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Response to post on my talk page

Dear Wuerzele: You posted this message on my talk page: "I saw you dropped this as a citation:

do you know how to insert proper citations on WP? --Wuerzele (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)"

Do you know the "Five Pillars of Wikipedia"? I think not. One of them is, "Editors should treat each other with respect and civility." Your question is far from civil.

The proper, civil thing to do, is to simply edit my reference to a format you feel is "proper". If you actually believe that I do not "know how to insert proper citations on WP" then you could post a respectful, civil note saying something like, "I have edited your reference at EV-D68, and I have reformatted it. Please take a look, as I think it will help you in the future."

---

For your information, I have been an editor since 9 November 2006, a total of 94 months,. You have been an editor for 18 months. I have made 4,215 edits. I have inserted, literally, thousands of references. You are the first to suggest, in any way, that my references are somehow defective. So actually to answer your original question: Yes I do know how to insert proper citations on WP. Clearly you do not since you question mine.

---

That said, I am always ready and willing to learn new editing techniques. So once again I suggest you "correct" my reference and I will take a look at what you do, and see if I like it.

Nick Beeson (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin mining

Hi, welcome back! I suggest you to read the changed wording of the section. You requested changes to it, and I added the anti-alteration measure preventing double-spending while keeping the previous collection of new transactions and consistency checks. I hope it is good enough to explain the design. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Re-insertion of regulatory status of bitcoin

You wrote: "re-inserted regulatory status of bitcoin in USA, per talkpage consensus" - I do not question that you had the consensus to reinsert the regulatory status of bitcoin, I am surprised that you left out other states, restoring just the status in the USA. For a non-US citizen, it looks quite strange. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I was waiting to hear someone complain about this, because of course its not a balanced world wide view to insert only USA, no matter what one's nationality is.

I had to make a decision what to re-insert after Fleetham's super massive edit from October 20. His edit summary had stated "remove material about bitcoin regulation to main page, Legality of Bitcoin by country", but after the initial cut and paste of +17,136 bytes, he deleted the original USA section and the ENTIRE International section 20 min later with the false and misleading edit summary "Remove country with no prose or citations". It is blatantly incorrect, if you just look at the +17,136 bytes -17,172bytes, which can hardly be a country "with no prose or citations".

I think this is intentionally scornful behavior, directed at me, since I wrote both of the sections.

So I am having a hard time to piece the whole thing together again, think some of the stuff should go into History of Bitcoin; if you would like to reinsert every country into Bitcoin, feel free to do so. IMO many of the country statements were poorly phrased or sourced (tangential info, generic or forecast statements) which I thought were not valuable, right from the beginning. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

"I think this is intentionally scornful behavior, directed at me, since I wrote both of the sections." - while the behaviour may be perceived as "scornful", I do not think it is directed specifically at you. Fleetham made similar deletions quite irrespectably of the original editor, being nondiscriminative in this sense. As to the additional work needed, I am glad you intend to make improvements, but I will not be of much help, sorry. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the second edit (deletion of US section I had assembled) was discriminating.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Taking into account that the lead section of the article mentions China together with the fact that China may be the largest bitcoin market, I would prefer to have a China subsection. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir, absolutely.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, to me already the division to "International" and "USA" looks pretty much "US-centric" (if there is such a word). Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. Feel free to rename with a different heading for the G7 stuff. I merely re-pasted.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I do not feel offended at all. I just see it as geographically nonneutral. (nitpicking warning)To constructively look for a geographically netural point of view, that would be a view that the Earth does not have any centre on its surface, which would suggest titles like "USA", "EU", "China", but not "USA" and "G7", since that is again US-centric, taking into account that "USA" would have to be in "G7".(/nitpicking warning) Hope I did not disgust you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav and you shouldnt be offended because I didnt offend you. but why so cautious? please dont make nitpicking warnings or couch your completely justified criticism in 'hope I dont disgust you'. As I said above, I chose USA, because I had to make a workable decision what to re-insert. I FORGOT to say, that I chose the US ONLY, because US regulation is a) most advanced at this point, multilayered, whereas other countries regs are crude, in state of waiting, and b) most transparent (citable) for readers of en.wikipedia. I dont read Chinese and doubt their respective committee/law transcripts are even available. I'll reinsert China upon your suggestion, but I will not insert every little blurb of every country (editors choice!). Make a suggestion for the subsection for G7 or Europe. Its late here, and getting extremely windy and cold.Dobrý večer.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I already changed the other title to "European Union", otherwise I do agree with you that it makes sense to have a standalone "USA" section. Being at it, I also adjusted bitcoin capitalization in the text. Good evening to you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dirt box (cell phone)

Hello Wuerzele,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Dirt box (cell phone) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Trivialist (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Trivialist: So what was this all about? tagging then removing the tag minutes later? and sorry, I prefer to reply here and leave the discUssion in one place for transparency rather than hopping around.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that -- after you fleshed out the article a bit more, it seemed worth keeping around, which is why I took the tags back off. Trivialist (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Trivialist ok, maybe hold your horses a bit next time?--Wuerzele (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

RE: Mark Clark

I left a message for your attention here: Talk:Mark W. Clark

Thanks...143.120.99.10 (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The 5th sentence in the opening in this article seems incomplete to me:

• "One legacy of the "Clark task force", which he headed from 1953-55 to recommend on all Federal intelligence activities, is coining the term Intelligence Community."

Can somebody fix this to what it was they intended to say? 143.120.99.10 (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

talk The sentence is complete and says what it intends to say. Sorry, I cant fix it, if you dont say what part of the sentence is unclear to you. I added a ref, although this is not needed in the lede.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Please use a moderate tone when addressing other editors; "impatient and arrogant edit warring editor" is not appropriate. — Brianhe (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Brianhe You are right. I should have gone to arbitration right away. someone hellbent ( unreasonable) to editwar- with or without Asperberger's syndrome- and WP:trolling isnt good news to wikipedia, esp if he's done it to others before. I doubt you saw all that. It took too much time to do this at the time but I might still do it.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Stopping to say thanks

Hi, Wuerzele, I just want to thank you for correcting my date mismatches at Talk:Bitcoin. Now I am sure that you fully deserved the barnstars ;-) BTW, did you hear about Go (game) before I mentioned it? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav of course!--Wuerzele (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

...And your restoration of "Legal status and regulations" turns out as a perfect thing. BTW, do you think it might make sense to mention recent updates in Switzerland? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I dont understand what you mean by perfect thing, but Yes.

I think that this edit can give a hint. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The section title, ehem, confused me! Also, it was just after Thanksgiving here --Wuerzele (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Now you lost me, which section title confused you? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC) - Aha, you mean this section...Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

yes. it was like a joke on Thanksgiving...--Wuerzele (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and, BTW, only now (that took quite some time, didn't it?) I do understand why you hated the "despite...". It is a typical example of WP:SYNTH. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav wp:synth yes. but did it take "quite some time"? whatever! it would take me eons to figure things out in Czech....--Wuerzele (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice

Hi, I filled an issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Fleetham Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I commented. I am sorry I am behind with my communications. Its almost 5 am and I havent even slept yet but must leave in a couple hours for a meeting ...--Wuerzele (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It was not obligatory for you to comment, I just left it here for you to know. Hope you are not too tired. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey , know it wasnt mandatory, but it's my duty. ----Of course I was damn tired, but again duty calling. email me if you want to know more- I cant email you.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I adjusted my preferences, you can email me now. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Penny Seven Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Warning by two editors

The requirement for ANI is the effort of at least two editors to warn the user against making disruptive edits. The original ANI was swept under the rug, but it is possible to restart it again, since there already are two editors who warned him. The question is not whether to do it, but whether to give Fleetham yet another opportunity to make a mistake or just decide that it was enough. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav, thanks for your post. I take it as an opportunity to do post event debriefing, as they say in my world. I've been thinking about ANI, this common law intervention of WP.

This was the second time in my short WP life of 1 year 10 months and 6 days that I've been involved in it, on top of that for the same problem editor and both times without resolution. Since trying the same thing resulting in the same outcome over and over again is stupid, or how goes the saying? (ALbert E. supposedly said "insanity" but may have had a different view of insanity than I) I ve been mulling it over:

As I see ANI, it is a capricious and unpredictable instrument, no robot court of justice. It's like allowing a fire to happen in a controlled setting, so iron melts and something can be forged or cast.

Thus ANI's effectiveness to resolve a case (=topic and involved persona) seems to depend on

1. speed -something I had no idea about- because if it last >36 h the discussion is archived-box closed, no oxygen. Harsh, but quite analogous to the original iron business.
2. how the issue is presented on the ANI page (clear, appropriate, practical vs obscure, difficult) = set up of tools for ironwork
3. the wikipage in question (appealing, uncomplicated vs complex and debated) = attractiveness of object you want to forge
4. maybe the accuser/defendant involved, if they have a following/ are well known.
5. the admins on-service drawn to the case, their motivation, willingness, discipline to follow through and participate. They control the setting according to their experience, competence etc etc (master smiths, fire men)
6. quantity and quality of chance editors chiming in, their experience, focus and pace
7. luck, of course (=every other context variable that we can’t influence, from current events, natural disasters to wikipedia traffic, you name it)

If you analyze how the ANI went:

• it fizzled, and slow-down worked in favor of the defendant.
• presentation: I don't know what could have been done better. Editors experienced in ANI and admins could tell us.
• Topic: Bitcoin is difficult and contested, if you take the # of regular editors vs vandals and temp editors on Bitcoin as a proxy.
• admins: Two got drawn to it, namely EdJohnston and was it Laserbrain? I didn’t notice them at the time (did you?). Only after the case was closed I looked up user rights. they made a single comment each, and both made supportive comments. I have no clue what stopped them to continue. i dont know if there's an on-call schedule, someone assigned or if it’s pure happen chance of a pool.
• public comments: MrCatzilla was the only editor from bitcoin, and he helped in the case, as did MrChoppers. August Figure the Penny7-Sock was certainly no help, as were the 2 other editors, who had no experience with the topic nor the problem, nor the problem editor.

The opportunity was there, but iron never hot for forging. it stayed cool and nothing happened. so it could be as you said "swept under the carpet". a circumstantial discussion is a huge waste of energy /coal. --3RRN is still possible in my opinion--Wuerzele (talk) 07:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

cornhusker army ammunition plant

why was the site deleted? --Wuerzele (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I presume you meant Cornhusker Army Ammunition Plant (spelling and capitalization are important when trying to locate information on a deleted article). As the deletion log indicates, the article was deleted under Speedy deletion criteria G7. Specifically, the person who created the article blanked its contents less than 5 hours after the article was created and everyone else who edited the file indicated it should be deleted (adding copyright violation or speedy deletion request templates). The blanking was presumably prompted by a message from CorenSearchBot to the article creator identifying the article as a likely copyright violation (the contents were a copy-and-paste of [8]). --Allen3 ^talk 02:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on the deleted site's copyright violation. i cannot see the deletion log.

yeah you presume right, i was in a hurry and all is not capitalized.

but if you look at my userpage you knew, that I knew how to spell it and didnt need to nit pick on an unrelated issue...

--Wuerzele (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin talk related to Criminal activities

Hi, I informed TimidGuy, and he acknowledged (at his talk page) that he made an error commenting in an inappropriate section. He promised to look at it tomorrow. BTW, did you notice [9]? I do not mind much if these facts are in there not knowing whether they may be helpful for an uninformed editor, but I am pretty sure it is not a personal attack. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav, yes, I noted. No, it is not a personal attack. Besides reverting, this is his last straw, that he again and again pulls. you havent been at the receiving end -as I have, he made false accusations against me attacking him all the time, so maybe you didn't notice the pattern. He will also tell you, that you ignored his questions (and by teh letter of teh law one has to answer his question lest be accused to block consensus building), even though he repeatedly ignores answers, ignoring teh spirit of teh law, so to a superficial onlooker, it seems as if he's right. It's all part of him WP:gaming the system.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Please be careful when making references to specific editors

Just FYI, but you need to be careful when writing about the actions of specific editors, esp. myself. Anything that looks like a WP:PA violation will be reverted, and if you insist on replacing personal attacks once they have been taken down, I will escalate this to an ANI and you will be banned. Please be civil! Fleetham (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Silk Road link

It looks like this edit changed a link pointing at Silk Road (marketplace) to Silk Road. I think the former is correct. As there are already several Silk Road (marketplace) links in the article, I have just removed the link anyway. Ttwaring (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ttwaring you are completely right and I actually don't understand what happened, because I didnt want to undo THAT, mess up the silk road link, but as the edit summary says: "Undid revision 638881947 by 79.181.154.182 (talk) reverted test edit" -which is not what happened. what wires crossed in my computer I don't know! I hope you decide to stay on Bitcoin, because level headed editors are sorely needed.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Wuerzele. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RfC at Bitcoin, re: mentioning its use in online black markets. Thank you.

Hi, I am writing this to inform you that Fleetham "forgot" to inform us about starting the discussion. Please inform whoever else you find appropriate about it. Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ladislav Mecir Thank you for letting me know, I would have honestly not known until after Xmas.--Wuerzele (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

3RR board swept another filling under the rug, throwing the hot potato back to ANI. The fact is that significant new evidence is available for ANI:

• Bitcoin edit warring unresolved and unexplained
• another round of edit warring during NPOV dispute, claiming the edits are "NPOV"
• other editors absent from the war concentrating on the dispute. F. misuses this to claim that the changes he made recently "have long been in the lede"
• F. messed with an obviously consensual (no opposition at all) synthesis-removing edit in the lead section during edit-warring
• too many reversals of talk contribs
• filling a NPOV board issue "failing" to notify other discussing editors

I estimate that if filled this time, the ANI result will be different. It was possible to ignore edit-warring, attributing it to dispute last time, but the list of issues became too large to sweep it under the rug the same way. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav, Thanks for sharing your energy. I have Notification Board Fatigue (NBF I need to start a WP essay -:)), but I will be supportive of any constructive effort, as always. Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas break, --Wuerzele (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Why were sanctions at editwarring noticeboard declined 12-21-14 re Bitcoin editwar ?

Bbb23, I asked you this question at the 3RR Noticeboard hours after your Declined on December 21.

In your "justification" you wrote "If Fleetham were edit warring in the article, that would be different". I take this to mean that you felt editwarring on the Bitcoin talk page (12 diffs to prove) was "kind of justified".

Even if I follow you there, I do not understand how (leave alone why) you can imply in the above that, Fleetham was not edit warring in the article in face of all the painstakingly collected 18 diffs from 16 Dec, 10 Dec, 30 Nov of reverts in the article proving plainly Fleetham is edit warring on Bitcoin.

Fleetham had even been warned by administrator EdJohnston on his talkpage during the unsuccessful December ANI of Bitcoin, that he was editwarring, and yet he did it again.

So: Please help the community following this issue understand, why you declined (the request for sanctions). It is a really important part of rendering a judgement.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ed's comment came after the November 30 revert, and it wasn't exactly a warning. The December 16 edit isn't sufficient to justify sanctions. There was no edit on December 10. If Ed wants to override me in this, he's free to do so. Otherwise, I don't want to get into an extended discussion with you. Your comments on the Talk page don't demonstrate neutrality on your part. I suggest you move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. "The December 16 edit isn't sufficient, to justify sanctions" -obviously- but why?

Re Dec 10: The diffs I had correctly listed on the board report (labelled 10 December) were actually Dec 9, my error; if you had opened them though, you would have seen that. here are the 3 diffs again:

1. [10]637301643
2. [11]637308036
3. [12]637387020

I suggest, you comment on WHY the above diffs are no edit warring to finish this up. I dont wish an extended discussion with you either. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin RfC

Hello Wuerzele. I don't believe that it's appropriate to modify the question of an RfC after it is underway. We can deal with the other question after the originally-posted RfC is resolved, but it's almost never appropriate to modify talk page text after other editors have responded to it. Please undo your change and let's all make progress on both issues. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Specifico, I know that it is appropriate to modify the question of an RfC after it is underway. Dealing with a sham survey and then "the other question after the originally-posted RfC is resolved" is an enormous waste of editor time and attention, so it figures, that it's almost never appropriate to have a sham survey. Please undo your believing, check all facts before insinuating inappropriateness, and let's all make progress on the issue. Thanks. --Wuerzele (talk) 03:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Edits on Northrop Grumann

Copy/edit from my home page: I know that you are no vandal, but I reverted your edits on Northrop Grumann. You seemed to ignore the ref templates, to my surprise. You made umpteen changes at once and with the uninformative summary "needs more work"". It may be wiser to make less edits in one go.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi W. thanks for your note, but the edits made there were as a result of my following the "edit string" of a new editor who has been adding reference sources from his own self-published book. I have no real issue with that although Wikipedia does have concerns over an editor having a conflict of interest. In one recent case, where I was trying to incorporate a similar submission, another, long-standing editor simply removed the entire passage, citation and all. One of the things that I noticed was that the editor I was tracking, was making additions to articles that were missing or had problems in citations/bibliographical notes, which I was trying to "fix" at the same time as making his contribution, at least, somewhat acceptable. I did, however, send a courtesy missive indicating that "advertising" your own wares may be frowned upon in the Wikywacky wonderland. As to maintaining reference formats, there is no directive that citation or bibliographical templates are the "standard", neither being sanctioned nor accepted as such. Over the last 10 years, the Wiki editors who created the templates, left in many "bugs" that interfere with the output of the standard formatting that a reader would see. Most of the problems stem from simply the computer dictum of "garbage in, garbage out". The vast majority of wikipedia editors are not trained reference librarians or editors, subsequently, the templates were created as an aid, but many editors are not even aware that a wide range of templates are being employed, nearly all of them written in the APA (American Psychological Association) or simplified variant of it. The APA style guide is widely used in research papers at academic institutions for the Sciences, but the usual style guide for the Humanities and in most publishing, is the MLA (Modern Language Association)/Chicago style for bibliographic notations. Since the vast majority of what I edit is in the Humanities, i.e. history, I tend to use that style guide whenever possible. The Wiki templates do not accommodate the MLA formatting, and although they can be modified to output in MLA, most editors would not be able to make those changes. What can be done is to "scratch catalog" the "tracings" which markup does allow and will format properly. Now, just to assuage your notion that you are dealing with a Luddite, I have been using templates for cataloguing for over 30 years, with the introduction of automation in libraries, where I worked as a reference librarian and later, author and editor for publishing houses. The typical MARc record template, however, was "bullet-proof" and has been in use for decades. Whenever an article has a hodgepodge of referencing problems, it is often easier to institute a consistent style. Using templates may seem like the simple choice, but, in reality, it is often the one issue that is the hardest to correct to output properly. Understanding the MLA and Harvard citation style guides is not for the neophyte or casual editor, so templates will have to suffice. The cataloguing/referencing issue may already be a moot point as I see that the article has been already reverted to a previous version. I would be happy to continue this dialogue, if you choose. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)