User talk:Sgornick - Revision history

Guaka at 14:21, 13 February 2019

2019-02-13T14:21:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:21, 13 February 2019
Line 50:		Line 50:
	== project:todo ==		== project:todo ==

	Hi! I have some ideas for improving this wiki. See [[project:todo]]. I hope you like it. ~~[[User:Guaka\|Guaka]] ([[User talk:Guaka\|talk]])~~ 12:27, 14 July 2013 (GMT)		Hi! I have some ideas for improving this wiki. See [[project:todo]]. I hope you like it. 12:27, 14 July 2013 (GMT)

Taras: Unsigned comments

2014-08-08T04:32:22Z

Unsigned comments

Guaka: /* project:todo */ new section

2013-07-14T12:27:59Z

project:todo: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:27, 14 July 2013
Line 47:		Line 47:
	==Bitcoin Energy consumption==		==Bitcoin Energy consumption==
	I do not agree with your latest modification on [[myths]] about energy consumption. Let's talk on [[talk:myths]] 09:40, 25 April 2013 (GMT)		I do not agree with your latest modification on [[myths]] about energy consumption. Let's talk on [[talk:myths]] 09:40, 25 April 2013 (GMT)

			== project:todo ==

			Hi! I have some ideas for improving this wiki. See [[project:todo]]. I hope you like it. [[User:Guaka\|Guaka]] ([[User talk:Guaka\|talk]]) 12:27, 14 July 2013 (GMT)

Brenzi at 09:40, 25 April 2013

2013-04-25T09:40:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:40, 25 April 2013
Line 43:		Line 43:

	As the [[Talk:Tonal Bitcoin]] page says, discussion is fine, just not trolling (which is useless and only clutters up the page so legitimate discussion is harder). --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 13:36, 11 January 2013 (GMT)		As the [[Talk:Tonal Bitcoin]] page says, discussion is fine, just not trolling (which is useless and only clutters up the page so legitimate discussion is harder). --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 13:36, 11 January 2013 (GMT)


			==Bitcoin Energy consumption==
			I do not agree with your latest modification on [[myths]] about energy consumption. Let's talk on [[talk:myths]] 09:40, 25 April 2013 (GMT)

Luke-jr at 13:36, 11 January 2013

2013-01-11T13:36:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:36, 11 January 2013
Line 41:		Line 41:
	If the majority of editors understand and support a consensus, you have less work, as not only others do what you would have to do else, but yet others feel worse about doing what you have to revert later. As it stands I have no bad feelings to bring back the Tonal:Talk but if there is a good reason not to discuss this particular article and I find this good reason somewhere, I will refrain from doing so.		If the majority of editors understand and support a consensus, you have less work, as not only others do what you would have to do else, but yet others feel worse about doing what you have to revert later. As it stands I have no bad feelings to bring back the Tonal:Talk but if there is a good reason not to discuss this particular article and I find this good reason somewhere, I will refrain from doing so.
	--[[User:Giszmo\|Giszmo]] ([[User talk:Giszmo\|talk]]) 20:29, 8 January 2013 (GMT)		--[[User:Giszmo\|Giszmo]] ([[User talk:Giszmo\|talk]]) 20:29, 8 January 2013 (GMT)

			As the [[Talk:Tonal Bitcoin]] page says, discussion is fine, just not trolling (which is useless and only clutters up the page so legitimate discussion is harder). --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr\|talk]]) 13:36, 11 January 2013 (GMT)

Giszmo: /* Tonal */

2013-01-08T20:29:57Z

Tonal

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:29, 8 January 2013
Line 36:		Line 36:
	Thanks Giszmo for inquiring. My beef is that waging an edit war causes me more work. I peruse the [[Special:RecentChanges\|Recent changes]] to know what content has changed so that I can help remove spam, or learn what has changed. If daily I come across an edit and revert of a page, day after day, that is upsetting to me. The article isn't hurting anything. My opinion then is to just leave it be. And if there's an edit war I will attempt to show it is futile (unwinnable) because I will add my firepower (i.e., I can click "undo" too) on the "let it exist" side.		Thanks Giszmo for inquiring. My beef is that waging an edit war causes me more work. I peruse the [[Special:RecentChanges\|Recent changes]] to know what content has changed so that I can help remove spam, or learn what has changed. If daily I come across an edit and revert of a page, day after day, that is upsetting to me. The article isn't hurting anything. My opinion then is to just leave it be. And if there's an edit war I will attempt to show it is futile (unwinnable) because I will add my firepower (i.e., I can click "undo" too) on the "let it exist" side.
	- [[User:Sgornick\|Sgornick]] ([[User talk:Sgornick\|talk]]) 20:33, 28 December 2012 (GMT)		- [[User:Sgornick\|Sgornick]] ([[User talk:Sgornick\|talk]]) 20:33, 28 December 2012 (GMT)

			I understand your motive but can't agree with your action. If you have more power than others then you should use it with care and not randomly just stop an edit war. Edit wars are hard work, too ;)
			You claim there is no harm done but you [https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATonal_Bitcoin&diff=34092&oldid=34043 don't allow a discussion about exactly that to take place]. I'm really disappointed. What next? Delete my account for annoying you here cause you need more time to keep up the good work?
			If the majority of editors understand and support a consensus, you have less work, as not only others do what you would have to do else, but yet others feel worse about doing what you have to revert later. As it stands I have no bad feelings to bring back the Tonal:Talk but if there is a good reason not to discuss this particular article and I find this good reason somewhere, I will refrain from doing so.
			--[[User:Giszmo\|Giszmo]] ([[User talk:Giszmo\|talk]]) 20:29, 8 January 2013 (GMT)

Sgornick: /* Tonal */ Respond to Gismo's inquiry.

2012-12-28T20:33:13Z

Tonal: Respond to Gismo's inquiry.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:33, 28 December 2012
Line 33:		Line 33:
	May I ask why you take LukeJR's side in the edit war on Tonal Bitcoin? If you are the Stephen Gornick from the forum I would really appreciate your reasoning why the wiki should keep Tonal* around.		May I ask why you take LukeJR's side in the edit war on Tonal Bitcoin? If you are the Stephen Gornick from the forum I would really appreciate your reasoning why the wiki should keep Tonal* around.
	--[[User:Giszmo\|Giszmo]] ([[User talk:Giszmo\|talk]]) 00:59, 28 December 2012 (GMT)		--[[User:Giszmo\|Giszmo]] ([[User talk:Giszmo\|talk]]) 00:59, 28 December 2012 (GMT)

			Thanks Giszmo for inquiring. My beef is that waging an edit war causes me more work. I peruse the [[Special:RecentChanges\|Recent changes]] to know what content has changed so that I can help remove spam, or learn what has changed. If daily I come across an edit and revert of a page, day after day, that is upsetting to me. The article isn't hurting anything. My opinion then is to just leave it be. And if there's an edit war I will attempt to show it is futile (unwinnable) because I will add my firepower (i.e., I can click "undo" too) on the "let it exist" side.
			- [[User:Sgornick\|Sgornick]] ([[User talk:Sgornick\|talk]]) 20:33, 28 December 2012 (GMT)

Giszmo: /* Tonal */ new section

2012-12-28T00:59:22Z

Tonal: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:59, 28 December 2012
Line 28:		Line 28:

	This isn't an affiliate link, it is a tracking link to measure the amount of users who click from this site to dtsleech.com and the amount of sale/conversions there are link specific. It is not a link associated with any user account at dtsleech.com or in any way an affiliate link. It is purely for market research, would appreciate if it was not removed.		This isn't an affiliate link, it is a tracking link to measure the amount of users who click from this site to dtsleech.com and the amount of sale/conversions there are link specific. It is not a link associated with any user account at dtsleech.com or in any way an affiliate link. It is purely for market research, would appreciate if it was not removed.

			== Tonal ==

			May I ask why you take LukeJR's side in the edit war on Tonal Bitcoin? If you are the Stephen Gornick from the forum I would really appreciate your reasoning why the wiki should keep Tonal* around.
			--[[User:Giszmo\|Giszmo]] ([[User talk:Giszmo\|talk]]) 00:59, 28 December 2012 (GMT)

ADTRA: /* "affiliate" link of dtsleech.com link */ new section

2012-11-27T06:24:34Z

"affiliate" link of dtsleech.com link: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:24, 27 November 2012
Line 24:		Line 24:

	Hi. I just edited the Network article to correct some sentences with the word "only" in the wrong part of the sentence, and noticed that one was a recent edit of yours, so thought I'd let you know. I realise that the word is often misplaced in sentences even by native English speakers, possibly even the majority, but as this is a technical document, and technically it does change the meaning by having it in the wrong place, I felt it better to correct these. --[[User:Rebroad\|Rebroad]] 21:40, 23 February 2012 (GMT)		Hi. I just edited the Network article to correct some sentences with the word "only" in the wrong part of the sentence, and noticed that one was a recent edit of yours, so thought I'd let you know. I realise that the word is often misplaced in sentences even by native English speakers, possibly even the majority, but as this is a technical document, and technically it does change the meaning by having it in the wrong place, I felt it better to correct these. --[[User:Rebroad\|Rebroad]] 21:40, 23 February 2012 (GMT)

			== "affiliate" link of dtsleech.com link ==

			This isn't an affiliate link, it is a tracking link to measure the amount of users who click from this site to dtsleech.com and the amount of sale/conversions there are link specific. It is not a link associated with any user account at dtsleech.com or in any way an affiliate link. It is purely for market research, would appreciate if it was not removed.

Rebroad: /* placement of only */ new section

2012-02-23T21:40:57Z

placement of only: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:40, 23 February 2012
Line 20:		Line 20:

	It's not a binary distribution site first of all, it offers links to the official download pages for each piece of software man, its simlpy a guide to help people set up miners and solve any common problems, the only advertisements on the site is a top banner and a side box of which both are tiny and non distracting, there are no pop ups and no spam, we don't take emails from people so we cant spam them through that, I just don't understand how you see the site as spam advertisements, have you even looked at it =/ Seriously look, its just a set up guide and in fact has less advertisements on it than most other websites, I don't understand the rationality behind your argument, can you at least check my site and show me what spam advertisements you are referring to so i can fix this problem, because believe it or not the site does matter to me, as does its popularity with the bit coin community and the simple removal of my links yesterday literally vaporized my hit rate to practically non existent, you know the bit coin community lacks simple set up guides and that's all I offer, a guide, with links to what they need, nothing more, no spam advertisements like you claim. And finally as a testament to such, tell me EXACTLY what part of the site your unhappy with, and ill try my hardest to change it, im just proud of my little site and i don't want it being damaged, it makes no money and i'll show you, admins, and anyone else the ad sense logs to prove that.		It's not a binary distribution site first of all, it offers links to the official download pages for each piece of software man, its simlpy a guide to help people set up miners and solve any common problems, the only advertisements on the site is a top banner and a side box of which both are tiny and non distracting, there are no pop ups and no spam, we don't take emails from people so we cant spam them through that, I just don't understand how you see the site as spam advertisements, have you even looked at it =/ Seriously look, its just a set up guide and in fact has less advertisements on it than most other websites, I don't understand the rationality behind your argument, can you at least check my site and show me what spam advertisements you are referring to so i can fix this problem, because believe it or not the site does matter to me, as does its popularity with the bit coin community and the simple removal of my links yesterday literally vaporized my hit rate to practically non existent, you know the bit coin community lacks simple set up guides and that's all I offer, a guide, with links to what they need, nothing more, no spam advertisements like you claim. And finally as a testament to such, tell me EXACTLY what part of the site your unhappy with, and ill try my hardest to change it, im just proud of my little site and i don't want it being damaged, it makes no money and i'll show you, admins, and anyone else the ad sense logs to prove that.

			== placement of only ==

			Hi. I just edited the Network article to correct some sentences with the word "only" in the wrong part of the sentence, and noticed that one was a recent edit of yours, so thought I'd let you know. I realise that the word is often misplaced in sentences even by native English speakers, possibly even the majority, but as this is a technical document, and technically it does change the meaning by having it in the wrong place, I felt it better to correct these. --[[User:Rebroad\|Rebroad]] 21:40, 23 February 2012 (GMT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:32, 8 August 2014
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Yet Bitomat is not available in English... what's the difference here? --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] 06:22, 4 August 2011 (GMT)		Yet Bitomat is not available in English... what's the difference here? --[[User:Luke-jr\|Luke-jr]] 06:22, 4 August 2011 (GMT)

	Good point, Luke-jr. Unfortunately, they don't belong on the trade page for another reason -- they are info only, they have no trade. Otherwise I would add them back in somewhere.		Good point, Luke-jr. Unfortunately, they don't belong on the trade page for another reason -- they are info only, they have no trade. Otherwise I would add them back in somewhere. {{unsigned\|Sgornick}}

	==13:13, 10 August 2011 (GMT)==		==13:13, 10 August 2011 (GMT)==
Line 11:		Line 11:
	--[[User:Vladgiurgiubv\|Vladgiurgiubv]] 13:13, 10 August 2011 (GMT)		--[[User:Vladgiurgiubv\|Vladgiurgiubv]] 13:13, 10 August 2011 (GMT)

	Vladgiurgiubv, It was an unwritten but generally accepted rule that no affiliate / referral links should be included in the wiki for a number of reasons. The [[BitcoinWiki:Rules\|policy]] does now exist though.		Vladgiurgiubv, It was an unwritten but generally accepted rule that no affiliate / referral links should be included in the wiki for a number of reasons. The [[BitcoinWiki:Rules\|policy]] does now exist though. {{unsigned\|Sgornick}}

	==22:58, 11 August 2011‎ (GMT)==		==22:58, 11 August 2011‎ (GMT)==

	Dear sgornick, I realize you recently removed my links to iscyspace on the mining guide, how bit coin works and irc claiming they were none existent, this is not the case, I'll agree to the irc one because well . . . my irc is pretty much empty >_< however my site most certainly does exist and in fact the guide is blatantly on the open page, as a sign of good will I have removed the linkbucks links and replaced them with direct links instead as i pay for my site through advertisements, although even I admit the linkbucks thing took it a bit to far, I've sent you an email explaining the situation and offering some further comments and I hope to hear back from you soon.		Dear sgornick, I realize you recently removed my links to iscyspace on the mining guide, how bit coin works and irc claiming they were none existent, this is not the case, I'll agree to the irc one because well . . . my irc is pretty much empty >_< however my site most certainly does exist and in fact the guide is blatantly on the open page, as a sign of good will I have removed the linkbucks links and replaced them with direct links instead as i pay for my site through advertisements, although even I admit the linkbucks thing took it a bit to far, I've sent you an email explaining the situation and offering some further comments and I hope to hear back from you soon. {{unsigned\|Iscalar}}

	It is blatant spam/advertising. Using a binary distribution site for open source software is uncool, and clearly shows you to be unqualified to contribute further on this wiki, in my opinion. I've referred this to the admins. - [[User:Sgornick\|Sgornick]] 23:30, 11 August 2011 (GMT)		It is blatant spam/advertising. Using a binary distribution site for open source software is uncool, and clearly shows you to be unqualified to contribute further on this wiki, in my opinion. I've referred this to the admins. - [[User:Sgornick\|Sgornick]] 23:30, 11 August 2011 (GMT)

	It's not a binary distribution site first of all, it offers links to the official download pages for each piece of software man, its simlpy a guide to help people set up miners and solve any common problems, the only advertisements on the site is a top banner and a side box of which both are tiny and non distracting, there are no pop ups and no spam, we don't take emails from people so we cant spam them through that, I just don't understand how you see the site as spam advertisements, have you even looked at it =/ Seriously look, its just a set up guide and in fact has less advertisements on it than most other websites, I don't understand the rationality behind your argument, can you at least check my site and show me what spam advertisements you are referring to so i can fix this problem, because believe it or not the site does matter to me, as does its popularity with the bit coin community and the simple removal of my links yesterday literally vaporized my hit rate to practically non existent, you know the bit coin community lacks simple set up guides and that's all I offer, a guide, with links to what they need, nothing more, no spam advertisements like you claim. And finally as a testament to such, tell me EXACTLY what part of the site your unhappy with, and ill try my hardest to change it, im just proud of my little site and i don't want it being damaged, it makes no money and i'll show you, admins, and anyone else the ad sense logs to prove that.		It's not a binary distribution site first of all, it offers links to the official download pages for each piece of software man, its simlpy a guide to help people set up miners and solve any common problems, the only advertisements on the site is a top banner and a side box of which both are tiny and non distracting, there are no pop ups and no spam, we don't take emails from people so we cant spam them through that, I just don't understand how you see the site as spam advertisements, have you even looked at it =/ Seriously look, its just a set up guide and in fact has less advertisements on it than most other websites, I don't understand the rationality behind your argument, can you at least check my site and show me what spam advertisements you are referring to so i can fix this problem, because believe it or not the site does matter to me, as does its popularity with the bit coin community and the simple removal of my links yesterday literally vaporized my hit rate to practically non existent, you know the bit coin community lacks simple set up guides and that's all I offer, a guide, with links to what they need, nothing more, no spam advertisements like you claim. And finally as a testament to such, tell me EXACTLY what part of the site your unhappy with, and ill try my hardest to change it, im just proud of my little site and i don't want it being damaged, it makes no money and i'll show you, admins, and anyone else the ad sense logs to prove that. {{unsigned\|Iscalar}}

	== placement of only ==		== placement of only ==
Line 27:		Line 27:
	== "affiliate" link of dtsleech.com link ==		== "affiliate" link of dtsleech.com link ==

	This isn't an affiliate link, it is a tracking link to measure the amount of users who click from this site to dtsleech.com and the amount of sale/conversions there are link specific. It is not a link associated with any user account at dtsleech.com or in any way an affiliate link. It is purely for market research, would appreciate if it was not removed.		This isn't an affiliate link, it is a tracking link to measure the amount of users who click from this site to dtsleech.com and the amount of sale/conversions there are link specific. It is not a link associated with any user account at dtsleech.com or in any way an affiliate link. It is purely for market research, would appreciate if it was not removed. {{unsigned\|ADTRA}}

	== Tonal ==		== Tonal ==