Category talk:History - Revision history

Taras: Taras moved page Talk:History to Category talk:History

2015-07-06T17:11:43Z

Taras moved page Talk:History to Category talk:History

← Older revision	Revision as of 17:11, 6 July 2015
(No difference)

Giszmo: wikify

2012-08-27T05:09:57Z

wikify

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:09, 27 August 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Any reason the 'bitcoin first' page is separate from the older History page?		Any reason the 'bitcoin first' page is separate from the older History page?

	Ya, probably so that the History page was more specific to bitcoin, but firsts was for trivia and only true firsts.		:Ya, probably so that the History page was more specific to bitcoin, but firsts was for trivia and only true firsts.
	Like maybe going to v0.6 release is enough to make it into the History, but not something that would go into firsts. At the same time, the first food truck to start using bitcoin might be something suitable for the Firsts page but would be extraneous in the Bitcoin History page.		:Like maybe going to v0.6 release is enough to make it into the History, but not something that would go into firsts. At the same time, the first food truck to start using bitcoin might be something suitable for the Firsts page but would be extraneous in the Bitcoin History page.

Sgornick: Add explanation why Bitcoin Firsts exists and History at the same time.

2012-03-30T08:33:19Z

Add explanation why Bitcoin Firsts exists and History at the same time.

← Older revision	Revision as of 08:33, 30 March 2012
Line 1:	Line 1:
		Any reason the 'bitcoin first' page is separate from the older History page?

		Ya, probably so that the History page was more specific to bitcoin, but firsts was for trivia and only true firsts.
		Like maybe going to v0.6 release is enough to make it into the History, but not something that would go into firsts. At the same time, the first food truck to start using bitcoin might be something suitable for the Firsts page but would be extraneous in the Bitcoin History page.

Luke-jr: Blanked the page

2012-03-21T15:32:59Z

Blanked the page

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:32, 21 March 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~==Tonal "junk"==~~
	Why is the Tonal junk in there? No-one uses iot, and I remember there being one guy heavily pushing for it, to the point of spamming. Might want to remove it... [[User:Gigitrix\|Gigitrix]] 01:37, 13 June 2011 (GMT)

	Given the recent github pull by luke-jr (the only advocate for tonal bitcoin AFAIK) has recently been NACKED, and no one else is advocating this, nominating this nor seconding this proposal, I agree that the tonal mentions are not worthy of mention in this article. If we see strong support coming in for tonal bitcoin, then this should of course be reviewed, but I would suggest any further pushing of this agenda should be considered to be disruptive to the bitcoin project, and appropriate action taken. Juding from luke-jr's comments on this wiki and on github I am failing to see any benefits from tonal bitcoin, and plenty of disadvantages, confusion and disruption from its continued mention. Consequently I have now deleted references to it from the article. --[[User:Rebroad\|Rebroad]] 23:02, 20 March 2012 (GMT)

Rebroad: formatting

2012-03-20T23:02:57Z

formatting

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:02, 20 March 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
			==Tonal "junk"==
	Why is the Tonal junk in there? No-one uses iot, and I remember there being one guy heavily pushing for it, to the point of spamming. Might want to remove it... [[User:Gigitrix\|Gigitrix]] 01:37, 13 June 2011 (GMT)		Why is the Tonal junk in there? No-one uses iot, and I remember there being one guy heavily pushing for it, to the point of spamming. Might want to remove it... [[User:Gigitrix\|Gigitrix]] 01:37, 13 June 2011 (GMT)

	Given the recent github pull by luke-jr (the only advocate for tonal bitcoin AFAIK) has recently been NACKED, and no one else is advocating this, nominating this nor seconding this proposal, I agree that the tonal mentions are not worthy of mention in this article. If we see strong support coming in for tonal bitcoin, then this should of course be reviewed, but I would suggest any further pushing of this agenda should be considered to be disruptive to the bitcoin project, and appropriate action taken. Juding from luke-jr's comments on this wiki and on github I am failing to see any benefits from tonal bitcoin, and plenty of disadvantages, confusion and disruption from its continued mention. Consequently I have now deleted references to it from the article. --[[User:Rebroad\|Rebroad]] 23:02, 20 March 2012 (GMT)		Given the recent github pull by luke-jr (the only advocate for tonal bitcoin AFAIK) has recently been NACKED, and no one else is advocating this, nominating this nor seconding this proposal, I agree that the tonal mentions are not worthy of mention in this article. If we see strong support coming in for tonal bitcoin, then this should of course be reviewed, but I would suggest any further pushing of this agenda should be considered to be disruptive to the bitcoin project, and appropriate action taken. Juding from luke-jr's comments on this wiki and on github I am failing to see any benefits from tonal bitcoin, and plenty of disadvantages, confusion and disruption from its continued mention. Consequently I have now deleted references to it from the article. --[[User:Rebroad\|Rebroad]] 23:02, 20 March 2012 (GMT)

Rebroad: remove references to tonal as NN (not notable), and the recent change on github has been NACKed, so not lookng likely to be implemented any time soon.

2012-03-20T23:02:25Z

remove references to tonal as NN (not notable), and the recent change on github has been NACKed, so not lookng likely to be implemented any time soon.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:02, 20 March 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Why is the Tonal junk in there? No-one uses iot, and I remember there being one guy heavily pushing for it, to the point of spamming. Might want to remove it... [[User:Gigitrix\|Gigitrix]] 01:37, 13 June 2011 (GMT)		Why is the Tonal junk in there? No-one uses iot, and I remember there being one guy heavily pushing for it, to the point of spamming. Might want to remove it... [[User:Gigitrix\|Gigitrix]] 01:37, 13 June 2011 (GMT)

			Given the recent github pull by luke-jr (the only advocate for tonal bitcoin AFAIK) has recently been NACKED, and no one else is advocating this, nominating this nor seconding this proposal, I agree that the tonal mentions are not worthy of mention in this article. If we see strong support coming in for tonal bitcoin, then this should of course be reviewed, but I would suggest any further pushing of this agenda should be considered to be disruptive to the bitcoin project, and appropriate action taken. Juding from luke-jr's comments on this wiki and on github I am failing to see any benefits from tonal bitcoin, and plenty of disadvantages, confusion and disruption from its continued mention. Consequently I have now deleted references to it from the article. --[[User:Rebroad\|Rebroad]] 23:02, 20 March 2012 (GMT)

ThomasV: Undo revision 20303 by Luke-jr (talk) : censorship is not good

2012-03-02T12:40:01Z

Undo revision 20303 by Luke-jr (talk) : censorship is not good

← Older revision	Revision as of 12:40, 2 March 2012
Line 1:	Line 1:
		Why is the Tonal junk in there? No-one uses iot, and I remember there being one guy heavily pushing for it, to the point of spamming. Might want to remove it... [[User:Gigitrix\|Gigitrix]] 01:37, 13 June 2011 (GMT)

Luke-jr: Blanked the page

2011-12-01T22:31:32Z

Blanked the page

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:31, 1 December 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Why is the Tonal junk in there? No-one uses iot, and I remember there being one guy heavily pushing for it, to the point of spamming. Might want to remove it... [[User:Gigitrix\|Gigitrix]] 01:37, 13 June 2011 (GMT)

Gigitrix: Re tonal

2011-06-13T01:37:41Z

Re tonal

New page

Why is the Tonal junk in there? No-one uses iot, and I remember there being one guy heavily pushing for it, to the point of spamming. Might want to remove it... [[User:Gigitrix|Gigitrix]] 01:37, 13 June 2011 (GMT)