User talk:Docdemort

Nomination of Terrahash for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Terrahash is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrahash until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. McGeddon (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terahash

I'm not sure if we should move the article while there's a deletion discussion going on, to be honest. If you think terahashes need their own article rather than being part of the existing cryptographic hash function article, you should join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrahash. --McGeddon (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok agreed to not move the article for now

i simply want to argue that the article content is legitemate, aside from spelling issues. after the legitemacy of the article is or is not proved, we can discuss other issues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Docdemort (talk • contribs) 11:22, 9 January 2015‎

Somebody's pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrahash that your terahash article covers some useful ground which Bitcoin network#Bitcoin mining currently fails to address. Maybe it's worth turning your attention there instead? --McGeddon (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so....

so how does that information, not justify an entire page for this article?

The material you've written overlaps broadly with Bitcoin_network#Bitcoin_mining, and we try to avoid WP:CONTENTFORKING - having two articles that cover the same subject. If the terahash article was written purely about terahashes (that they are a billion hashes and they're often used as a unit), it looks like it would only be a few sentences. --McGeddon (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok i see a few issues here.

these issues have just come to my attention.

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article has no links to other Wikipedia articles. (January 2015) This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (January 2015)"

i will rectify these articles shortly. but the thing to remember is the valuable information it carries, not its links to other wiki pages, but i will link it to others, so please give me some time to do so. and additionally, i dont want to put alot of time into something, that you will simply merge, or delete, thats not really fair to me, and my time.

If you have a strong reason why Wikipedia shouldn't delete the article, you should explain this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrahash. It looks like the link tags were just added by somebody sweeping through with an automated script. --McGeddon (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok

you said " the terahash article was written purely about terahashes (that they are a billion hashes and they're often used as a unit), it looks like it would only be a few sentences"

i will add some lines, when i get a chance, thank you for brining this to my attention— Preceding unsigned comment added by Docdemort (talk • contribs) 10:19, 10 January 2015‎

If you've decided to ignore Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrahash then the page seems likely to simply be deleted when the AfD closes, as nobody at the AfD has yet given any argument for the article remaining in place. You need to explain why Wikipedia needs a full article on terahashes, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrahash is the place where you should explain it. --McGeddon (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]