Jump to content

User talk:Ladislav Mecir

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jeff at ODEM (talk | contribs) at 08:17, 24 December 2018 (→‎Request: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank you for keeping Bitcoin in shape. you are an awesome wikipedian ! Wuerzele (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Ladislav, thanks much for improving and maintaining legality of bitcoin working with Fleetham, so it has become useful and reliable ! Wuerzele (talk) 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for fixing my style errors in History of Bitcoin I'll try to remember to use lowercase in the future :) Mbevand (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, problem, Mbevand, you are welcome. This is a matter of convention, and it looks that the competent sources (and WP editors) started to prefer uniform lowercase as described at Bitcoin#Etymology and orthography. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions alert

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

TonyBallioni (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on you

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Ladislav Mecir. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Ladislav Mecir|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the informations you provided here and respond to your requests as follows
  • I was neither directly nor indirectly compensated for any of my Wikipedia edits in the past.
  • I am neither directly nor indirectly compensated for any of my Wikipedia edits now.
  • I do not expect to be compensated either directly or indirectly for any of my Wikipedia edits in the future. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Ladislav's contribs today as I was wondering why it has been a while since he has commented on what has been going on at the various crypto articles that we frequently edit. I noticed this talk page thread was the only recent edits he has made. I enjoyed reading the biographical links about Ladislav and learning about him, and at the same time find the accusations that Smallbones (talk · contribs) to have made to be unfounded. This to me looks like WP:HARASS and I believe the line was crossed when in a span of less than 30 days Smallbones asserted without any evidence that Ladislav has some COI that must announce (with no evidence than other than Ladislav's frequent edits to a narrow range of articles). There was no mention whatsoever in any of the press clippings or nor the interesting 7 minute audio interview of any WP:COI and that leaves me wondering what is the basis for these accusations (in fact all the sources state that Ladislav doesn't own any crypto, which would be the most common COI in this topic area). I thought I would ping a few more eyes to this @MER-C: & @TonyBallioni:. I don't have any evidence that these accusations are the reason Ladislav stopped editing, but this is just the sort of thing that drives editors away. Note that in the section just above this Smallbones also opended a WP:COI noticeboard about Ladislav (and me as well for good measure). A bit over the top in my opinion. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
For being a fair and rational editor. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jtbobwaysf, and thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The entry on Blockchain should cite relevant prior art, including Chaum 79, Chaum 82, and Merkle.

It was wrong for Mercir to cut the four relevant refs I had added and then to assert that the edits were largely unsourced. These refs document the validity of the edits. The question is who first proposed the ideas underlying blockchain. The current text asserts (incorrectly) that Nakamoto was first, and the text provides no justification for this assertion. Similarly for the concept of proof of work. At a minimum, point out the claims with the documenting refs, and let the reader decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alantsherman (talk • contribs) 16:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There are several problems with your above claim:
  • You edited the Blockchain article, not the Bitcoin article as your above text confusingly suggests.
[ATS: ?! I edited only information about blockchain; I did not edit anything about Bitcoin.]
Yes, I know, but the wording of your title (see above) is confusing. [It was a typo]
  • In the Blockchain article, there is information that it was Satoshi Nakamoto who invented the blockchain. The information is confirmed by the independent sources cited in the article, and your edit deleted it. Your edit deleted more informations than that.
[ATS: ?! I did not delete any refs, only two statements of misfact. I find nothing in the current article that confirms that Nakamoto was first. Such an argument would have to consider a variety of possible sources, but the article fails to mention several vital sources (three of which you deleted).]
The "two statements of a misfact" are based on sources cited in the article. I can understand that you see it differently, but you do not have any reliable source supporting your opinion yet.

[I cited three sourced articles, and another in press. These sources should be cited.]

  • There is no doubt that there were prior inventions, and such an information is mentioned in the article and confirmed by the cited sources. None of those inventions qualified as a blockchain, however, missing several attributes of blockchain. Per the sources cited in the article, the previous inventions were just ideas, on which the Nakamoto's invention of blockchain was based.
[ATS: The current text does a weak job at mentioning prior ideas, and in particular does not discuss or cite prior work by Chaum and Merkle and others. I suggest that a subsection be created that discusses such prior work more thoroughly and accurately. Nakamoto could not have "based" his work on Chaum because he was not aware of Chaum's work. Claims that this prior work are missing attributes should specify what attributes are missing.]
You are right that the prior work could have been discussed more thoroughly. I added some sourced information related to the difference between the blockchain and the previous attempts to create a system maintaining document certificates. It also mentions the Hashcash as one of the ideas incorporated. As to your claim mentioning Chaum, it is not obvious whether Nakamoto knew some of Chaum's works or not. On the other hand, Chaum concentrated on design of a digital currency, and it is questionable whether there was any invention that could be characterized as blockchain-related. Note also that the History of bitcoin article does mention Chaum's work.
[ATS: This history article has rather poor science and facts. I am referring not to Chaum's digital currency but to his 1979 Vault System, as described in his 1979 TR at Berkeley and his 1982 dissertation at Berkeley.]
  • If you want to put into the article an evaluation of work by Chaum, Merkle or others, you have to cite relevant sources, not just cite Chaum's, Merkle's, or somebody else's work and make an evaluation of your own claiming that they invented the blockchain. See WP:SECONDARY for "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[ATS: My analysis has been vetted and accepted to a reliable journal and will appear in the next issue.]
Then we may have another source to consult, but until then, it is premature to edit the article using evaluations that are unpublished yet. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ladislav Mecir. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution noticeboard discussion re: List of bitcoin forks

Information icon There is currently a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the discussion we're having on List of bitcoin forks. Please give your opinion. Fresheneesz (talk) 04:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Can you please review this Wikipedia page? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ODEM

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ladislav_Mecir&oldid=875169846"