![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) -- Parsley1972 ( talk) 19:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hold on, pal - that line above is just like asking me to complete the statement "I have unambiguously stopped beating my wife because ...."
The fact is that there is nothing promotional about the entry that I have created. There is a currency called MazaCoin, and I have simply created an entry that says what MazaCoin is. There has never been anything promotional in this article. If some fucktard computer orbit thingummy, or worse, a human equivalent, thinks that the few lines I have written is promotional they should spend their energy on some climbing frame rather than wasting my time and anyone else's. I was about to give some money to Wikipedia but I think I shall wait and see what happens. If Wikipedia has so many people who can waste time harassing perfectly neutral authors then clearly it needs no money.
Another reason no to delete. This is a factual entry about a a native American tribe doing something that the lawful government of that tribe thinks is constitutional and fair and lawful. To delete this page in the charge that it is promotional is not only nonsense on stilts, it would be an act that is racist, bigoted and offensive.
As seen here: http://www.nsweekly.com/ in the most recent article, this Mazacoin is not actually the official curency of anything, this article should be considered advertisement.
Full text for article available at : ref — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.192.122 ( talk) 19:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Mazacoin is now a deadcoin. market cap of 80k USD (as low as joke coins like "Hobonickels" or "fluttercoin".. nearly non-traded, no hashrate, no development. I didn't put this up for deletion, but might as well be. WinterstormRage ( talk) 08:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on MazaCoin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Smallbones: I've restored information that is referenced and not misleading. Jonpatterns ( talk) 09:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MazaCoin. Jonpatterns ( talk) 17:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I have a background in Bitcoin, and it is an environment where it is common to be suspicious of any of these coins launched for some specific purpose (sometimes social, like being "official") that apparently Bitcoin could not support (but they never explain exactly why). Now, consensus in Wikipedia doesn't seem to be that these are in fact scams, and it would indeed be difficult to draw the line. Notice how you have Bitcoiners calling Ethereum a scam because of how it was launched, and then you can bike-shed definitions of "pre-mining" and so on. But that is an extremist view since no crypto media has any interest in bursting the hype. Mainstream media follows along.
So while I personally believe half of these are scams or schemes to "get rich quick", I don't think consensus can be established for that. But consensus **has** been established that churnalism is bad and that many crypto sources are abysmal, so I nominate on those grounds.
I read your post and I ask myself what you imagine could happen next. If you want to somebody to run CheckUser, go ahead and ask, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was no sock-puppeting here: Merely a lot of Wikipedians who want to give "all cryptocurrencies equal footing" or something like that.
If you indeed think that the sources are false, and that the AfD was closed on false grounds, why not open a deletion review? But deletion review only applies if you disagree with the closing, not if you disagree with consensus. -- Ysangkok ( talk) 19:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) -- Parsley1972 ( talk) 19:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hold on, pal - that line above is just like asking me to complete the statement "I have unambiguously stopped beating my wife because ...."
The fact is that there is nothing promotional about the entry that I have created. There is a currency called MazaCoin, and I have simply created an entry that says what MazaCoin is. There has never been anything promotional in this article. If some fucktard computer orbit thingummy, or worse, a human equivalent, thinks that the few lines I have written is promotional they should spend their energy on some climbing frame rather than wasting my time and anyone else's. I was about to give some money to Wikipedia but I think I shall wait and see what happens. If Wikipedia has so many people who can waste time harassing perfectly neutral authors then clearly it needs no money.
Another reason no to delete. This is a factual entry about a a native American tribe doing something that the lawful government of that tribe thinks is constitutional and fair and lawful. To delete this page in the charge that it is promotional is not only nonsense on stilts, it would be an act that is racist, bigoted and offensive.
As seen here: http://www.nsweekly.com/ in the most recent article, this Mazacoin is not actually the official curency of anything, this article should be considered advertisement.
Full text for article available at : ref — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.192.122 ( talk) 19:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Mazacoin is now a deadcoin. market cap of 80k USD (as low as joke coins like "Hobonickels" or "fluttercoin".. nearly non-traded, no hashrate, no development. I didn't put this up for deletion, but might as well be. WinterstormRage ( talk) 08:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on MazaCoin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Smallbones: I've restored information that is referenced and not misleading. Jonpatterns ( talk) 09:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#MazaCoin. Jonpatterns ( talk) 17:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
I have a background in Bitcoin, and it is an environment where it is common to be suspicious of any of these coins launched for some specific purpose (sometimes social, like being "official") that apparently Bitcoin could not support (but they never explain exactly why). Now, consensus in Wikipedia doesn't seem to be that these are in fact scams, and it would indeed be difficult to draw the line. Notice how you have Bitcoiners calling Ethereum a scam because of how it was launched, and then you can bike-shed definitions of "pre-mining" and so on. But that is an extremist view since no crypto media has any interest in bursting the hype. Mainstream media follows along.
So while I personally believe half of these are scams or schemes to "get rich quick", I don't think consensus can be established for that. But consensus **has** been established that churnalism is bad and that many crypto sources are abysmal, so I nominate on those grounds.
I read your post and I ask myself what you imagine could happen next. If you want to somebody to run CheckUser, go ahead and ask, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was no sock-puppeting here: Merely a lot of Wikipedians who want to give "all cryptocurrencies equal footing" or something like that.
If you indeed think that the sources are false, and that the AfD was closed on false grounds, why not open a deletion review? But deletion review only applies if you disagree with the closing, not if you disagree with consensus. -- Ysangkok ( talk) 19:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)