Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.
With respect to any reverting restrictions:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 April 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (your reason here) anybody but those who think WP should be static and that new articles cannot have be allowed any space for devt would not be so quick (5 mins!) to label them for speedy deletion. What is wrong with WP today is the impossibility of contributing to it. Anybody except the afore-described could do a simple web search and see Kraken is an org which matches the other similar orgs which have uncontested articles here at WP. So butt out. Let people contribute. I have added two links very easily found as to the orgs prominence in its field. Please help expand the article. Write, don't burn. Thanks --Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remarks above indicate this in not an uncontroversial deletion. Evidence of notability in cited sources: [1], [2], [3]. ~Kvng (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I got here, I found that the vast majority of dates were in [D]D Monthname YYYY format, despite this being an article on an American company. While it's not forbidden use DMY dates for US subjects, it's weird, outside US military subjects. There were a bunch of ISO dates in the citations, too, obviously dumped there by someone's citation script, so I normalized those to the already dominant DMY format, per MOS:DATEVAR. I think there were less than 10 dates in the entire page in the expected MDY (Monthname [D]D, YYYY) format. But I think that is what the article should actually be using. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 23:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Objections etc. are welcome. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @TrangaBellam - as an editor who has contributed a bit to this page in the past, I appreciate your work towards a more concise entry. A few things I think might warrant reinsertion: (1) the availability of the service (i.e., how many states and countries) seems relevant and purely factual, (2) the fact that Kraken was one of the first bitcoin exchanges to be listed on Bloomberg is relevant to both the industry and the history of the company, and (3) the SPDI charter is absolutely noteworthy - again, in context of the crypto industry's evolution towards broader acceptance and integration. I don't think I have much of an issue with your other edits and deletions. I may revisit these three points a bit when I have the time. Thanks! Loslistos (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against (2). Please avoid creating useless subsections. Find me sources about the importance of (3). TrangaBellam (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay... if you had nothing against (2), what was the reason for the full reversion, rather than working with my edits?
SPDI charters are important in the industry because they allow for direct cash deposits and withdrawals - there are pros and cons for consumers, for sure, but I don't think there's a question that the construct itself (and the fact that Kraken was the first crypto exchange to receive one) is notable. Here are some sources on this issue:
All I see is a WSJ op-ed. Primary sources do not count. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shall you remove content under dubious reasons, I will request arbitration enforcement. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly was the "dubious" content removal? All I've done is re-include the SPDI mention, which is obviously worthy even if you don't care to see that, and I added needed balance to the Work Culture section - nothing in my edits removed the crux of that story, nor would I want to. I simply rounded out the actual facts with one additional legitimate source (instead of an entire section relying on one anonymously sourced piece) and an aim towards achieving NPoV. Isn't that what we're here for? You seem to have no interest in engaging/evolving the content on this page, and your tendency to rely on bulk reversion when you don't like something lacks good faith. Loslistos (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like, what in the world is your problem with shifting the items in the Controversies section so that they appear chronological? This is the kind of thing that shows absolutely no interest in working with other members of the community. Loslistos (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
