User talk:Sgornick

From Bitcoin Wiki
Revision as of 14:21, 13 February 2019 by Guaka (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

06:22, 4 August 2011 (GMT)

Trade‎; 05:20 . . (-71) . . Sgornick (Talk | contribs)‎ (→Getting started:  Remove BTCBase, this is wiki is generally for english-only sites. There are separate wikis for other languages.)

Yet Bitomat is not available in English... what's the difference here? --Luke-jr 06:22, 4 August 2011 (GMT)

Good point, Luke-jr. Unfortunately, they don't belong on the trade page for another reason -- they are info only, they have no trade. Otherwise I would add them back in somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgornick (talkcontribs)

13:13, 10 August 2011 (GMT)

Mr. Sgornick I thought this was a good idea. I don't understand how it hurts the community?!(I don't see the reasons in deleting them.) I made my contributions (Introduced 4-5 bitcoin-related sites and wrote some descriptions). The users don't have anything to loose and the BTC I make out of this I intend to spend on (after I get an invitation). Isn't there a way I can leave those links there? We have the same rights on this wiki so I hope we can disscus this with respect and consideration. --Vladgiurgiubv 13:13, 10 August 2011 (GMT)

Vladgiurgiubv, It was an unwritten but generally accepted rule that no affiliate / referral links should be included in the wiki for a number of reasons. The policy does now exist though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgornick (talkcontribs)

22:58, 11 August 2011‎ (GMT)

Dear sgornick, I realize you recently removed my links to iscyspace on the mining guide, how bit coin works and irc claiming they were none existent, this is not the case, I'll agree to the irc one because well . . . my irc is pretty much empty >_< however my site most certainly does exist and in fact the guide is blatantly on the open page, as a sign of good will I have removed the linkbucks links and replaced them with direct links instead as i pay for my site through advertisements, although even I admit the linkbucks thing took it a bit to far, I've sent you an email explaining the situation and offering some further comments and I hope to hear back from you soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iscalar (talkcontribs)

It is blatant spam/advertising. Using a binary distribution site for open source software is uncool, and clearly shows you to be unqualified to contribute further on this wiki, in my opinion. I've referred this to the admins. - Sgornick 23:30, 11 August 2011 (GMT)

It's not a binary distribution site first of all, it offers links to the official download pages for each piece of software man, its simlpy a guide to help people set up miners and solve any common problems, the only advertisements on the site is a top banner and a side box of which both are tiny and non distracting, there are no pop ups and no spam, we don't take emails from people so we cant spam them through that, I just don't understand how you see the site as spam advertisements, have you even looked at it =/ Seriously look, its just a set up guide and in fact has less advertisements on it than most other websites, I don't understand the rationality behind your argument, can you at least check my site and show me what spam advertisements you are referring to so i can fix this problem, because believe it or not the site does matter to me, as does its popularity with the bit coin community and the simple removal of my links yesterday literally vaporized my hit rate to practically non existent, you know the bit coin community lacks simple set up guides and that's all I offer, a guide, with links to what they need, nothing more, no spam advertisements like you claim. And finally as a testament to such, tell me EXACTLY what part of the site your unhappy with, and ill try my hardest to change it, im just proud of my little site and i don't want it being damaged, it makes no money and i'll show you, admins, and anyone else the ad sense logs to prove that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iscalar (talkcontribs)

placement of only

Hi. I just edited the Network article to correct some sentences with the word "only" in the wrong part of the sentence, and noticed that one was a recent edit of yours, so thought I'd let you know. I realise that the word is often misplaced in sentences even by native English speakers, possibly even the majority, but as this is a technical document, and technically it does change the meaning by having it in the wrong place, I felt it better to correct these. --Rebroad 21:40, 23 February 2012 (GMT)

"affiliate" link of link

This isn't an affiliate link, it is a tracking link to measure the amount of users who click from this site to and the amount of sale/conversions there are link specific. It is not a link associated with any user account at or in any way an affiliate link. It is purely for market research, would appreciate if it was not removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADTRA (talkcontribs)


May I ask why you take LukeJR's side in the edit war on Tonal Bitcoin? If you are the Stephen Gornick from the forum I would really appreciate your reasoning why the wiki should keep Tonal* around. --Giszmo (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2012 (GMT)

Thanks Giszmo for inquiring. My beef is that waging an edit war causes me more work. I peruse the Recent changes to know what content has changed so that I can help remove spam, or learn what has changed. If daily I come across an edit and revert of a page, day after day, that is upsetting to me. The article isn't hurting anything. My opinion then is to just leave it be. And if there's an edit war I will attempt to show it is futile (unwinnable) because I will add my firepower (i.e., I can click "undo" too) on the "let it exist" side.

- Sgornick (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2012 (GMT)

I understand your motive but can't agree with your action. If you have more power than others then you should use it with care and not randomly just stop an edit war. Edit wars are hard work, too ;) You claim there is no harm done but you don't allow a discussion about exactly that to take place. I'm really disappointed. What next? Delete my account for annoying you here cause you need more time to keep up the good work? If the majority of editors understand and support a consensus, you have less work, as not only others do what you would have to do else, but yet others feel worse about doing what you have to revert later. As it stands I have no bad feelings to bring back the Tonal:Talk but if there is a good reason not to discuss this particular article and I find this good reason somewhere, I will refrain from doing so. --Giszmo (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2013 (GMT)

As the Talk:Tonal Bitcoin page says, discussion is fine, just not trolling (which is useless and only clutters up the page so legitimate discussion is harder). --Luke-jr (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2013 (GMT)

Bitcoin Energy consumption

I do not agree with your latest modification on myths about energy consumption. Let's talk on talk:myths 09:40, 25 April 2013 (GMT)


Hi! I have some ideas for improving this wiki. See project:todo. I hope you like it. 12:27, 14 July 2013 (GMT)