User talk:KyleLandas

"minor" bitcoin edits
Hello. You recently removed some reference citations from the bitcoin article and marked the edits "minor." These citations supported the text and you've given no reason for removing them. Another editor then stated on talk that, post removal, the text was unsourced. Also this should not have been marked as a minor edit. I have replaced the references. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk  13:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Digital currency and safety
You are removing information from the Digital currency page. Specifically, you removed the safety section with this edit. I've restored that section, as per the talk page. Please don't remove large chunks of information like that without discussing it first. Particularly, as it isn't spam. If you have a problem with that section, use the talk page to explain it. &#42;*** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

David Chaum
Aloha. I'm a little late to the party, but I noticed you recently nominated David Chaum for deletion and removed a lot of material from the article. May I ask what compelled you to do this? The material you removed appears to be solid and easy to source, and Chaum is a highly notable person in his field. The reason I'm asking is because I would like to understand where you are coming from and see if we can both get on the same page. No hurry on a reply, take your time. Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. As one example, you removed a sentence stating he invented blind signatures. You justified the deletion under original research. The sentence linked to the article about blind signatures, where the first line states it was invented by David Chaum with a citation. Instead of deleting obviously correct statements, it would be more useful to copy the relevant citation back to the Chaum article. 134.117.225.80 (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin intro
Hi there. There's a problem with this text in the article about bitcoin: "Similar to other currencies, illicit drug and gambling transactions constitute some of its commercial usage." As is, this seems to imply the most noticeable usage of such currency is illegal actions, and the first part "similar to other currencies" seems to be begging the user to pardon this fact, since other currencies have the problem as well.

The way I had edited it, I wanted to emphasize the other ways Bitcoin's currently being used so as to leave a more balanced image to readers: 24/365 international transfers, tax-refuge, avoiding the government taking your money, etc. Sorry for omiting the references, I planned to continue editing the article on this week - besides a lot of journalistic articles on Bitcoin mention these other usages. TrollDeBatalla (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, KyleLandas! Thank you for your contributions. I am New worl and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! New worl (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Thanks for the undo
See reply on my talk page. Cliff12345 (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverting bitcoin page canges, as it was misunderstood as a promotion material
Hi Kyle, XBT is newly proposed ISO standard currency symbol for bitcoin; actually, it is quite a bit old. This will be used in exchanges and other official documents. This currency unit is too fine to be used in day to day usage (1000 XBT = 13 cents). My reference link may not be appropriate, and that change.org petition was not created by me. This is no way a self promotion. I will try to provide the best link possible now. I can refer to a tweet from jon matonis of bitcoinfoundation.org. You can consider this as the most authoritative. So, I will go ahead and put that changes back. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Archiving
Fyi, talk page archiving happens automatically. You might save yourself the hassle :) TippyGoomba (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox bitcoin
Template:Infobox bitcoin has been nominated for merging with Template:. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Rezonansowy (talk &bull;&#32; contribs) 23:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin infobox
Please don't modify the Bitcoin page infobox without first reading and adding your opinion to Talk:Bitcoin
 * I see you reverted my reversion of your reversion. I won't participate in edit warring. I'll leave the infobox in its degraded state and await your constructive contributions to talk page.Chris Arnesen 20:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Curious, are you Kyle_Landas? Also curious, are you at the keys when types? Seriously, I'd like to understand you and your kind a little better. You see, I've been a long-time Wikipedia reader, and have only recently dipped my toes into editing. It's been an incredibly frustrating experience because I've worked so hard to put my time in on the Talk:Bitcoin page, soliciting feedback and laying out my argument, only to have some random dude or dudette roll back any changes I make to the actual page. So I'm trying to understand who you are, random dude / dudette who feels justified to stand in the way of progress on an article without actually weighing in and making a case on the Talk page. Part of me is jealous of you, because I feel compelled to lay out my case in detail on the talk page, and in the end I don't end up making much actual progress. Part of me wishes I could just make changes and preserve them by edit war without feeling like I'd done something wrong. Anyway, I'd love to better understand your position and motivation. Feel free to email if you'd rather not continue this discussion on your talk page. Regards, Chris Arnesen 05:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin infobox
There is an ongoing discussion about the Bitcoin infobox here. Please read and participate instead of continuing the edit war. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)