Forum Home
    • Register
    • Login
    • Search
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular

    Feathercoin Wikipedia article deleted.

    Feathercoin Discussion
    11
    26
    3885
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • P
      panoramix Regular Member last edited by

      Feathercoin article has been deleted from Wikipedia:
      Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Feathercoin_(2nd_nomination)

      Required action:
      Collect the reliable sources. Contact the admin who deleted the article on his talk page:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandstein#Deletion_of_Feathercoin_article
      There are plenty of independent sources and media mentions affirming Feathercoin notabiity.
      Post them to the talk page and ask what other sourcing was needed. Complain about closing
      the discussion against many keep votes.

      Afterwards, file an undeletion request. A more senior Wikipedian should do this.

      Talk page of the admin who closed the discussion as “delete”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandstein/wiki/User:Sandstein

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • T
        Tuck Fheman last edited by

        What kind of aholes are attempting to control information? They’re into cryptocurrencies, yet they hate freedom of information?! Wth is wrong w/people?!

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • C
          chrisj Regular Member last edited by

          I think Wikipedia really need to sort out their consistency issues. Dogecoin even has a page but then other more established currencies aren’t allowed. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litecoin]Litecoin has one[/url] but then it has actual technical errors in it but isn’t labelled.

          As much as I love wikipedia what I want to avoid is an ongoing feud with them. It looks worse for us to have an article that is constantly being debated than no article at all. The internet doesn’t revolve around them.

          I am NOT saying we shouldn’t fight for a wikipedia entry, however this will only happen if a good wikipedian is willing to invest the time in writing an impartial article on Feathercoin with good citations and thus far nobody has stepped forward. The article that was up there before was rightly deleted it had many inaccuracies some of which were damaging to our project.

          So if you are kind enough to put in some time for us in to writing a good alternative that complies with wikipedia’s rules then please let me know what you need from me and the others and I will gladly help.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • P
            panoramix Regular Member last edited by

            I understand your feelings, but swearing will not solve the situation. If you are a Wikipedian, please take the necessary action. This time the situation is serious. I did not expect the admin to close the discussion by “delete”.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • C
              chrisj Regular Member last edited by

              I see 7 votes for Keep and 6 for Delete with a 1 to merge with Litecoin article lol

              Sounds fair!

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • P
                panoramix Regular Member last edited by

                [quote]
                As much as I love wikipedia what I want to avoid is an ongoing feud with them. It looks worse for us to have an article that is constantly being debated than no article at all. The internet doesn’t revolve around them.

                I am NOT saying we shouldn’t fight for a wikipedia entry, however this will only happen if a good wikipedian is willing to invest the time in writing an impartial article on Feathercoin with good citations and thus far nobody has stepped forward. The article that was up there before was rightly deleted it had many inaccuracies some of which were damaging to our project.

                So if you are kind enough to put in some time for us in to writing a good alternative that complies with wikipedia’s rules then please let me know what you need from me and the others and I will gladly help.
                [/quote]

                Couldn’t say it better. The only point with which I disagree is, it is much better to have an article that is constantly disputed rather than no article. Giving up is the worst possible strategy here.

                My seniority in Wikipedia is not high enough to fight for the article without support, but I’ll help. The admin who ignored all the keep votes needs constant flaming on his talk page from many people while the article is being restored.

                Please keep in mind that given the money involved, there is also this possibility:
                [url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/21/money-to-pr-firm-can-buy-good-image-on-wikipedia/?page=all]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/21/money-to-pr-firm-can-buy-good-image-on-wikipedia/?page=all[/url]
                [url=http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3403&p=69968]http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3403&p=69968[/url]

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • C
                  chrisj Regular Member last edited by

                  [quote name=“panoramix” post=“50852” timestamp=“1389240843”]
                  [quote]
                  As much as I love wikipedia what I want to avoid is an ongoing feud with them. It looks worse for us to have an article that is constantly being debated than no article at all. The internet doesn’t revolve around them.

                  I am NOT saying we shouldn’t fight for a wikipedia entry, however this will only happen if a good wikipedian is willing to invest the time in writing an impartial article on Feathercoin with good citations and thus far nobody has stepped forward. The article that was up there before was rightly deleted it had many inaccuracies some of which were damaging to our project.

                  So if you are kind enough to put in some time for us in to writing a good alternative that complies with wikipedia’s rules then please let me know what you need from me and the others and I will gladly help.
                  [/quote]

                  Couldn’t say it better. The only point with which I disagree is, it is much better to have an article that is constantly disputed rather than no article. Giving up is the worst possible strategy here.

                  My seniority in Wikipedia is not high enough to fight for the article without support, but I’ll help. The admin who ignored all the keep votes needs constant flaming on his talk page from many people while the article is being restored.

                  Please keep in mind that given the money involved, there is also this possibility:
                  [url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/21/money-to-pr-firm-can-buy-good-image-on-wikipedia/?page=all]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/21/money-to-pr-firm-can-buy-good-image-on-wikipedia/?page=all[/url]
                  [url=http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3403&p=69968]http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3403&p=69968[/url]
                  [/quote]

                  Alright you sound like you know what you’re doing so I will take your lead on it.

                  As a citizen of the internet I will not allow someone to pay for an article on Wikipedia; that’s a violation of anyone’s ethics.

                  Also I don’t want us to be accused for a co-ordinated flame war against this admin though he does appear to have stepped out of line. Remember this conversation is public and being indexed by Google.

                  Now here are the articles featuring Feathercoin which are up for debate. The problem seems to be that they only contain passing mentions and the publications aren’t big enough. Dogecoin’s press was ADVERtorial. IE it was paid editorial, but Wikipedia doesn’t make a distinction for that in its rules instead relying on the brand of the publication to stand in for its trustworthiness. So the articles are:

                  [url=http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/28/bitcoin-alternatives-future-currency-investments]http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/28/bitcoin-alternatives-future-currency-investments[/url]
                  We are listed with a range of alts.

                  [url=http://za.news.yahoo.com/watch-bitcoin-feathercoin-wants-limelight-042040376.html]http://za.news.yahoo.com/watch-bitcoin-feathercoin-wants-limelight-042040376.html[/url]
                  A good but short article on Feathercoin.

                  [url=http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/12/24/bitcoin-altcoin-cryptocurrency/]http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/12/24/bitcoin-altcoin-cryptocurrency/[/url]
                  We are mentioned twice and I am quoted but is this just a passing mention?

                  I believe that these are the only ones that will qualify. Am I wrong?

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • D
                    dvsmasta Regular Member last edited by

                    [url=http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathercoin]http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathercoin[/url]

                    seems that the Spanish version is still around?

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • T
                      Tuck Fheman last edited by

                      Does it have to be a written article? Is Let’s Talk Bitcoin “big enough”? What about the audio interview with JustaBit on Feathercoin with LTB or the interview with Bushstar (wasn’t that conversation also written down into an interview/article)?

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • C
                        chrisj Regular Member last edited by

                        [quote name=“Tuck Fheman” post=“50861” timestamp=“1389244199”]
                        Does it have to be a written article? Is Let’s Talk Bitcoin “big enough”? What about the audio interview with JustaBit on Feathercoin with LTB or the interview with Bushstar (wasn’t that conversation also written down into an interview/article)?
                        [/quote]

                        They are indy media, it has to be notable source, something credible like Fox News or the Daily Mail in the UK :P

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • S
                          spynappels last edited by

                          Both of those might be true for a given value of “credible”…

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • P
                            panoramix Regular Member last edited by

                            [quote name=“chrisj” post=“50856” timestamp=“1389242070”]
                            Also I don’t want us to be accused for a co-ordinated flame war against this admin though he does appear to have stepped out of line. Remember this conversation is public and being indexed by Google.
                            [/quote]

                            Chris, I cannot lead this. We need to find someone else. My Wikipedia reputation is quite poor. I never concentrated on English Wikipedia. As for the admin, he definitely stepped out of the line, and his admission to the obvious does nothing to remedy his wrongdoing.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • B
                              BikerGSX Regular Member last edited by

                              [quote name=“MrFeathers” post=“50977” timestamp=“1389284303”]

                              Put this as a source. Its from a major news organization and clearly mentions feathercoin as a bitcoin alternative with faster confirmations and a 5mil market cap. [url=http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/12/24/bitcoin-altcoin-cryptocurrency/]http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/12/24/bitcoin-altcoin-cryptocurrency/[/url]

                              Also, for anyone who is new to the forum. This is at least the third consideration for deletion and the second time that the feathercoin wiki has actually been deleted. We have been having this problem since last summer. Feathercoin has been under attack by people who hold other cryptocurrencies. These are the same people who decried feathercoin as a “pump and dump scam” and predicted that it would fail right after launch. Anyone who has followed the feathercoin bashing threads on the litecoin forum can see that the main critics seem to be litecoin holders and developers (Warren). The fact that they continue to attack feathercoin in the midst of all the other scrypt coins, speaks volumes about their state of mind. These people feel threatened by feathercoin’s continued success both as a community and in the market. The best response is to continue to be the active and vibrant community that we are. ;D

                              I dont have much experience with wiki page edits but I would encourage everyone who does to fight to get the page back up. The first thing a lot of people do when they research is go to wiki and as a top coin we should fight to keep our wiki page.
                              [/quote]

                              +1Rep For a good and poitive reply. We will fight them on the beachers…W.C. Backbone is needed sometimes or you loose it. >:(

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • wrapper
                                wrapper Moderators last edited by

                                The fact you can now purchase them officially in the UK. I think Bush or Chris should write to them to officially ask what the problems are.

                                Then see if we can find someone else from wiki who is a feathercoin member, or some such, to cure the problem.

                                I can understand the opposition from wiki if they dealt with earlier staff, for instance…

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • ?
                                  A Former User last edited by

                                  Very nice!

                                  No idea.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • lizhi
                                    lizhi last edited by

                                    I’m creating a Chinese version of Wikipedia.

                                    [attachment deleted by admin]

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • wrapper
                                      wrapper Moderators last edited by

                                      Was ours a cut down version of this?

                                      [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litecoin]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litecoin[/url]

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • C
                                        chrisj Regular Member last edited by

                                        [quote name=“wrapper0feather” post=“52177” timestamp=“1389724045”]
                                        Was ours a cut down version of this?

                                        [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litecoin]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litecoin[/url]
                                        [/quote]

                                        No I don’t think so.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • wrapper
                                          wrapper Moderators last edited by

                                          Why not?

                                          That appears to be factually accurate and contains pertinent details, in a format that is compliment with Wiki’s requirements? The name and some functions differ as in Bitcoin Litecoin…

                                          If we had a cut down accurate one (Wiki Page draft) there would be no excuse to delete it, and we can work from there to make it better…

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • T
                                            TrollboxChamp Regular Member last edited by

                                            Dogecoin has a wiki but we dont :/

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post