User talk:EyePeaSea

The text below is taken from an exchange that I had with one particularly problematic Wiki Editor. Kept here for posterity!

MrX - Circular reference. Now that's a comment I understand, thank you. Point taken and I'll avoid in the future.

Edit conflict - response Smallbones - Here are some responses. If you're in a hurry, you may want to skip to the end to the bit that will make you happy.

'personal attacks' - Seriously? Your original editing (removing 50% of an article with just 8 words of explanation) did not seem rational. Hence my completely honest view that perhaps you had an issue with cryptocurrencies or specifically Gulden. I believed, and still do, that your editing without discussion (either to enable you to understand or for you to enlighten me) was "thoughtless" and I stand by that. You'll also note that I said "borders on vandalism" - please read that in context.

'Article ownership' - I don't believe I've intentionally declared ownership at any point. I have an interest in this page, as do other people. I wrote the original page, others have since amended it. I don't own the page. I feel a slightly ethereal paternal relationship toward the page for these reasons, but nothing more. I apologise if I've implied, or led you to infer, that I 'own' this page.

'COI' - For your information, there is no COI. Just to make that completely clear and unambiguous, I don't own a major position in the coin (or any cryptocurrency), nor am I being paid to edit the article. I have no specific relationship to any of the people or entities that do have a commercial interest with Gulden. I'm no more linked to them than I am to you (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation).

'Speculative' - Oh wow! First smile on my face for hours. Please check this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoist_with_his_own_petard - If you make authoritative statements such as 'has been named as one of the most speculative of all cryptocurrencies', you really should cite your references. Oh, and to mirror your request to me, "Please use reliable third-party sources". So which highly regarded, independent, reliable source (WP:WIS) did you read before forming that opinion?

Update* - Since drafting this response, I see that you added a reference - https://cryptovest.com/ - Oh, this is golden (pun intended). If that's what you consider to be WP:WIS, then you really should avoid editing pages that relate to Cryptos. I'm amazed at your audacity and then you utilise the subtle (but not very clever) 'fake-news' approach to 'fact' reporting. Specifically, you said "... has been named..." - this absolves you of responsibility (you haven't stated it's your opinion) but at the same time, it promotes a negative message.

Ok, you win. I give up. Do what you want with the page. Life is too short and there are too many, far more important, things in life for me to worry about.

You're a long standing editor who has the reputational clout on Wiki (and free time), to hammer me into the ground. I'm just one ordinary person, trying to contribute to Wiki (although this page has taken most of my time, I have tried to improve other pages and contributed in other ways, including financially). It really doesn't matter whether I *think* you're being unreasonable, or whether you really *are* being unreasonable, I can't win.

I now understand a bit better some of the criticism of Wikipedia that I've read but previously ignored. That criticism mostly centres on the way that some editors lord over the Wiki world and use the rules and their reputation to stifle, rather than encourage. Sometimes I click on the 'random' page and so frequently find pages that would fail, in your eyes, as miserably as this page does. Maybe you just haven't seen them? Maybe you just don't like me. Or Gulden. Or Cryptos. Or the Dutch. Whatever....

As I said, you win. Pop back every week or so and remove a few more words, until the page is completely blank. I'm going to copy this talk page into my personal talk page, as a reminder for myself. I'm already aware of the positive things about Wiki and also some of the positive people that' I've interacted with here. It will be useful to keep a copy of this exchange to remind me that with every positive, there's also a negative. EyePeaSea (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Can you please review this Wikipedia page? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ODEM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff at ODEM (talk • contribs) 07:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gulden (digital currency)[edit]

The article Gulden (digital currency) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability, largely uncited, one RS and some crypto blogs. This is cut-down from a much more blatantly promotional version.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David Gerard (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gulden (digital currency) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gulden (digital currency) 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/Gulden (digital currency) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. David Gerard (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]