User talk:Litesand

January 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Cryptocurrency. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest you explain your attempted edit at Talk:Cryptocurrency. Particularly, you need to explain where in that chart it indicates that miners do not have a financial incentive to provide security of the ledger once mining is profitable. —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• • Fred, miners ONLY have a financial incentive to provide maintenance for the ledger until it is profitable to do so. Once the profit is no longer an option, miners no longer have an incentive to maintain the ledger and the ledger is no longer valid. I’d like to hear your thoughts on this with specific logic statements and a reference. The old statement was "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger." vs. The new statement is "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger until mining is profitable." The old statement assumes an indefinite lifespan of the system and is false by default. Let me know your thoughts, thanks [1] Litesand (talk)

• Those first two statements are contradictory. —C.Fred (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• • • @C.Fred:First, hard costs clearly define a link between profitability - the hard costs are one indispensable element of profitability and revenue is another. Once the costs exceed revenue, no miner can or would want to stay in business to supply ledger maintenance, basically there is no reason to do that job any longer. Second, yes miners would be interested in providing maintenance if it were profitable, and not when it isn't is. This is exactly my argument. Yes, my statement also implies that miners will not have a financial incentive to provide the service once new mining is either theoretically impossible or not profitable. I agree, while "instead" of "until" may work better, people had deleted my correction and I had to resort to the simplest wording possible. Yes, it would help to have a consensus, and I hope you can see why. Maybe you can recommend a better statement that can clarify the finite nature of the system is directly linked to the profitability of miners. For now, I think we have an agreement that this statement is ok with you - "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger while mining is profitable." Thanks. Litesand (talk)

Blockchain and cryptocurrencies general sanctions alert

Please read this notice carefully.

You are receiving this notice because you recently edited one or more pages relating to blockchain or cryptocurrencies topics. You have not done anything wrong. We just want to alert you that "general" sanctions are authorized for certain types of edits to those pages.

A community decision has authorized the use of general sanctions for pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after the editor has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Retimuko (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Again: stop edit warring.

You are clearly edit warring repeatedly over at Big_Tech. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Tech&diff=961742948&oldid=961720926 Again, see edit warring. Note previous warning. 50.201.195.170 (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

NeighborCity

Hi, the above article is not eligible for PROD deletion. If you wish for it to be deleted, please follow WP:AFDHOWTO Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Spiderone: Thank you for the message. This company referenced in the article is defunct, the domain currently points to another unrelated entity. Web domain names are not protected by copyright law. There is no longer a trademark or an owner that protects the name NeighborCity and there is no such word or term in the common vocabulary. If the domain was operated by someone as a NeighborCity, then yes I can see why it cannot be removed. The common sense tells me that the right to be forgotten is a human right and it may extend to corporate entities. Also, the mere forwarding of a domain is not an extension of a defunct trademark. If one was to merely purchase a www.uber.com domain name, that would not entitle her to the full benefits of the Uber trademark, for example. This particular proposed WP:AFD may require a wider consensus. Can you please help me understand why you believe NeighborCity article is not eligible for a simple deletion? Is there another Wiki editor who can confirm your position?--Litesand (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Because PROD is a one-time process. It has already had a PROD and was contested. See [2]. Please also see WP:PROD where the 2nd paragraph explicitly states that you can't reinstate the PROD. Once it's removed, that's final. You need to use AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Spiderone: Understood. Other than the WP:AFD formality, do you have any objections for removal of this article? Meaning, do we want to keep a reference to a defunct trademark on Wiki? Do you think it may have any value? It seems like an outdated information. --Litesand (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)