User talk:ShoWPiece

Bitcoin
While I know that your intentions here are good, what you accomplished here was to restore a deleted article. If you really think the article quality has improved significantly, that may be a reason to restore the article.

The reason why it was deleted, a lack of notability, still hasn't been proven to me in terms of major 3rd party articles or sources of information that can be used to write an article about this topic. If you can't provide these sources, this article is likely to be deleted again. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note here that I didn't delete the article. What I did instead was to bring the issue up to a panel of Wikipedia administrators to do a quick review of the article and to confirm if it met the notability requirements with the revisions that have happened since the original deletion.  Furthermore, I spent about two hours with a Google search trying in vain to find additional sources of information that could be applied to tis article that would perhaps meet Wikipedia standards.  I'll have you know that I appreciate the excellent effort that has gone into this article, and as a matter of fact I've been involved with the Bitcoin community and have the Bitcoin client running on three computers in my household.  I really do appreciate the effort that you and others have put into this article.


 * When a more "mainstream" sources of information comes out about Bitcoins, I will fight fiercely for its restoration as a regular article on Wikipedia. Don't feel offended here as Bitcoins are quite new.  This is something which is true for almost any piece of software, but it isn't the role of Wikipedia to publicize or advertise a piece of software.  That is the job of the supporters of that software to spread the word through other means.


 * Seriously, let me know what I can do to help, but please don't try to tick off the administrators here at Wikipedia on this issue. It has been debated and discussed in the proper forums and efforts to overturn those decisions without providing the kind of sources that the administrators are looking for will only get the article locked down so you can't work on it or permanently deleted with some user blocks.  Please, follow the proper processes for review on Wikipedia and accept the decisions.... at least for now.  There is much that can be done including working on the "work in progress" version of the Bitcoins article (User:Message From Xenu/Bitcoin) and help find the sources that will get it listed.... or contact reporters and other people in the news media to write articles about Bitcoins to spread the word.  If you get those reporters to write articles (not mere blogs, but serious outlets talking about stuff of this nature) it will be included.  BTW, a blog is fine if you can note in some way that the blogger is a serious expert and that the blog is used as a major source of information about the topic... which could be loosely described as peer to peer software or internet based monetary systems (to make it apply to Bitcoins).  I have not found that.


 * BTW, I have generally been a fervent defender of new pages on Wikipedia and as a matter of fact I'm currently working on a project that I hope is going to cut down on the number of pages that are being deleted or at least put a bit of a road bump on good faith efforts to create new articles. If you would like to help me with this project, I would love to get your help but I'll let you know right now that diplomacy is a huge key in terms of what needs to be done right now.  Understand that I'm not here to squish your efforts but rather make sure that the article sticks once it is moved back so the question of an AfD or even a random deletion of the article will bring a strong reprimand on the administrator who does such an action.  Work with me here and don't fight me.  --Robert Horning (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bitcoin
A tag has been placed on Bitcoin, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Bitcoin
This article was not "previously deleted by an overly zealous deletionist." Deletion was decided by due process at WP:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin and that decision has now been endorsed twice at Deletion review/Log/2010 August 4 and Deletion review/Log/2010 September 26. You have to accept the community's judgement that this is not (yet) notable by Wikipedia's standards, and repeatedly restoring it or requesting undeletion is not going to change that.

Let me repeat the advice I gave at the Sept 26 review: what you should be putting your energy into is writing articles about it and getting them published in some reliable industry journals (i.e. those with enough editorial control to be accepted here as reliable sources). When you have achieved that, you can cite them as references and there will be no problem here. You are trying to use to use Wikipedia as the start of your promotion campaign, but that's not what it's for. JohnCD (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * (ShoWPiece:) I see. So you're calling my efforts "promotion campaign" while I specifically said I'm not promoting Bitcoin, just the alternate thinking represented therein. And I can update the article so it can meet the standards of picky self-appointed WP-policemen (who are OK with e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jango_Fett but not http://www.bitcoin.org/ ), except that you delete and lock the article while I'm trying to update it *despite* of the "hold on" tag. So in fact I can't update it. And people should publish articles about Bitcoin but you're making it harder for them to *find* the information others already gathered about it. Sweet. Got it.


 * Please be civil. We have procedures and try to follow them, but we aren't perfect. Arguing "because another article is bad, this one should exist" is not considered a good argument to make. The Bitcoin article was judged and found to be lacking in notability. You can ask to have the article put into your userspace and work on it there--such requests are not always honored, but it would be worth asking. But you will need to find some additional sources, that's the primary problem with the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is already a userspace draft at User:Message From Xenu/Bitcoin which you can work on. I used the word "campaign" because the number of single-purpose accounts who have come here to agitate about Bitcoin suggests that there is some sort of off-Wikipedia organization or canvassing going on. (I acknowledge that you are not an SPA, but even you have no edits on any other subject since January). JohnCD (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You acknowledge that you're not perfect and I fully agree. None of us are. Maybe you should cut some slack, you know, loosen up, don't read an article if you don't like it but leave it alone for others to read. I never argued that another article is bad so this one should exist. I don't *care* if those articles are good or bad (even though comparing the practicality of both articles is very revealing) but that doesn't mean I delete them just because I don't care or because I don't think they are important. Something for you to consider. Don't you see that "notability" has a subjective element to it? On top of discarding those half a dozen internal WP references to Bitcoin and the numerous external links, why on earth would *any* freely editable encyclopaedia discard a subject that might be very notable and/or important to others besides you? As for me having no edits since January or whatever, this isn't my job, I volunteer like most everyone else here, fix typos here and there, add sections when I can. How is when I edited last relevant here? You want to know what's irrelevant? Inventing reasons, like "arguing because another article is bad, this one should exist" (which I never said or implied) and looking up when I edited last, reasons that have nothing to do with the article, now *that's* irrelevant.


 * Have you looked up the word "civil"? It means "cultivation of habits of personal living that are claimed to be important for the success of the community." I'm trying to restore a useful (for many, not including you) article for the WP readership. You know, the "community" whose success I seek.


 * Also, how's this for discouraging WP volunteers from submitting useful articles and information? Have you looked at how many people you have made mad lately? People spend hours composing articles and images that are of course not perfect but may be useful to others some of who might actually improve them, and you keep deleting them. I can't see how this destructive behavior benefits *anyone* besides the likes of you.


 * Finally, disrespecting a wikipedia "hang on" tag would have deserved an explanation, but, well, I see your point, in that there's none.


 * I think you're missing the point. WP as a community has a set of standards, and we work together to reach those standards. Notability certainly can be subjective, that is precisely why we have guidelines and policies, and why we have fora such as WP:AFD where we can discuss issues and reach consensus. You're not happy with the community's choice in this matter, and that's understandable. But being unhappy with the community's choice does not give you the right to push your view on the community by overturning that decision. You've been given some decent advice on what to do if you want the Bitcoin article recreated, you know where it is being kept, so you can work on it. Robert Horning offered a way you could help influence policy, JohnCD pointed out that you could try to get something about the subject published in a reputable magazine. There are things you can do that would be constructive.
 * On a personal note, I cannot for the life of me understand why having an article here seems so important to some people--the internet is a vast place, and there are lots of other places to put information than Wikipedia. In no point of human history has it been so easy to make information you think is important available to the entire planet--wikipedia is not your only option. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What is happening here is that Wikipedia is being used as a promotional tool for spreading the word about Bitcoins. While an admirable goal in and of itself, that isn't the purpose of Wikipedia.  There is also confusion between something noteworthy and being "famous" to use another term that perhaps fits better here in this context.  Wikipedia is for things that are already famous, for which fame has already been well established and is usually indisputable.  Nobody objects to an article about Barack Obama being notable as he is already famous.  Bitcoins simply aren't, at least yet.  There is a small group of dedicated and incredibly intelligent people working on the concept and they are trying to reach out from their little circle, but the fame hasn't really spread much beyond that circle yet.  Fame in this case is established by means of notability as a standard and that 3rd parties are starting to talk about it.  I've been involved with many things that started out small and became big, including Wikipedia itself.  Just give it some time here, and do the promotion elsewhere is all we are trying to say.  An article about Bitcoins certainly will be welcome, but get those other people to start talking about it first and don't make Wikipedia the promotional tool.  --Robert Horning (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly, wikipedia isn't the website I thought it was. I no longer think it's user-editable in the original sense, if a small group of wp-burocrat nerds with no life can throw out articles at the touch of a button. Nor is it a source of important information that may educate or otherwise benefit people either. "Important" is irrelevant here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Dodson -- YES! A serious attempt (even if in its initial stages) to fix flawed monetary systems -- NOOO WAY!


 * But hey, maybe you have some weird point that I'm not seeing. I think I'm going to browse WP with your eyes for a while and delete any and all articles that are less notable than Bitcoin. I can imagine at least a few percent of all articles here fit into that category. Which is OK; what's 10000 "Delete" button pushes compared to the worthless hundreds of man-years that went into those articles, right guys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShoWPiece (talk • contribs)


 * If you can't see the flaws in your arguments here, I can't help you. Yes, there are articles on Wikipedia that are perhaps "less notable" than Bitcoins.  Those articles may be deleted too.  Again, don't fight me or those who've made a comment here on your talk page.  Help us out instead of fighting us.  Not everybody here is out to delete everything and in fact that others are even commenting on your talk page and trying to explain the situation, you should treat this as a compliment after a fashion.  They are caring about what you are doing here.  If it isn't these guys, it will be somebody else that will be deleting this content because Bitcoins really isn't notable.  If you think we are full of it, bring it up to a wider audience.  Mention how you think this is unfair on the Village Pump.  There are other ways to complain if you really think something bad is happening here and let the larger Wikipedia community know what is going on here.  Legitimate complaints are listened to.  I would like to see you as a contributor to this project rather than fighting us, but that is your choice here.  BTW, policies can change too, and there is a process to getting that to happen.  If you think the notability guidelines and policies are stupid, bring it up and let the Wikipedia community as a whole know about that.  I hope you do.  Please explain yourself, be diplomatic, and try to use a reasoned argument other than the cabal is keeping you from publishing articles.  --Robert Horning (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to endorse what Robert Horning has just said, and let me add that personally, I think we do need to work on a notability to help account for how FOSS projects work, since they often eschew traditional media and thus have a harder time meeting the bar for notability. I haven't figured out how to do that yet, myself. As for bringing articles that you feel are less notable than bitcoin to AFD, please do, we're happy for the help, I'm sure there are tens of thousands of article that do not meet guidelines for inclusion. As for wasted man hours, you might think about how we're trying to engage you in discussion and help you understand how parts of the WP system work. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

ShoWPiece (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC) The Bitcoin page is finally up.