User talk:LarsPensjo

Ethereum Welcome

Hello Lars, I notice you have started to edit the Ethereum page. Are a somewhat new wiki editor? Your edit/contributions list history is short so I wanted to wish you a welcome from an a fellow editor. I just wanted to send you a note that the Ethereum page gets sort of dramatic sometimes. There are a few editors who delete content constantly, and there are a few editors who try to balance it, and a few other editors other editors at other ends of the spectrum. I noticed you made this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethereum&oldid=736322635 and thought I would suggest to you that you summarize a bit, as it is possible that these editors will attempt to delete your content. If they do delete your content, please stay with it and keep editing, and also make an entry on the talk page. Sometimes it requires talk page entries (like you have already made for a different edit) to get content added to the page. Anyhow, just wanted to send you a hello, and thank you for editing the page. The page needs more editors who seek to add content and clarity to this subject. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Lars, if you have a reliable source for that recent edit you made on Ethereum, you really need to add a source citation.

That article is in a very contentious state right now (see its Talk page), has discussion/debates going on on multiple discussion boards (including WP:RSN), and has editors who are/will challenge nearly every statement that is added to the prose. I suspect the statement will be removed if not. Cheers.

And welcome to Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e:Thanks for the welcome! Though I have been editing articles since Wikipedia launched :-) Anyway, the Microsoft research articles states at the end of the introduction, bullet point 3, "Given a Solidity program and allegedly functionally equivalent EVM bytecode, we can verify their equivalence by ...". So text text I added isn't an exact citation, but it is saying the same thing. I could make an exact citation, but that would include much more technical detail (which was recently cut away by someone). I think the important thing here is that the research paper says it is possible, and then describes how they did it.LarsPensjo (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for clarifying your time on Wikipedia. I just noted the new WELCOME statement above. Now I know.

As for your comment. I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean citation? ... or quotation? I meant the former, But from you comment, I think you might mean the latter. N2e (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e:You are right, I used the wrong word. I was talking about a quotation.LarsPensjo (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Super. Now I've got it. I don't think you need to include as exact quotation from the material, at least not now. Encyclopedic summarizing of it is often best. But if challenged, or if issues arise, sometimes that could be necessary.

So back to why I wrote this in the first place. I just think that, should it not have a citation, given that article and the general contentiousness of adding anything, even simple statements to it, you'll probably want to make sure you add a citation. That's all I came here to say. Good luck. N2e (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LuxSE and Proof of Existence

Hello! The service that the Luxembourg Stock Exchange will provide does not appear to have any direct connection to Proof of Existence, an open source project that was developed by Manuel Araoz and Esteban Ordano and launched in 2013. The Proof of Existence article is not about "proof of existence" as a general concept, but about an open source project with no apparent connection to what LuxSE now plans to do with Ethereum, other than that they probably do something similar. If Manuel Araoz and Esteban Ordano are not using Ethereum in their project, then I think their project should be removed from the Ethereum#Applications list. The service that LuxSE will provide could be a valid entry, but only if you are able to provide an independent, third party source to support its inclusion. Otherwise it will be removed, because a press release by LuxSE is not an independent, third-party source. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodi 8238: Thank you, the Proof of Existence was a indeed a special project article, not the concept I thought it would be. So I agree the link wasn't relevant in this context. However, as a concept, Proof Of Existence was mentioned by one of the Ethereum developers in http://www.hudsonjameson.com/ethereummarriage/. But that would be first-party source, which is not a good source. Wouldn't the Luxembourg Stock Exchange be a third party source that validates it is indeed possible to do what Ethereum developers claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarsPensjo (talk • contribs) 14:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethereum#Applications is not a list of things that the Ethereum developers claim to be possible with Ethereum. It's a list of notable Ethereum applications. In this case, notability means that someone other than the people involved have noticed the applications and written about them. The source needs to be reliable, about the service that will be provided by LuxSE, and independent of both LuxSE and Ethereum. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solidity

Hi Lars, there is an ongoing discussion on the Talk:Solidity page about if Solidity is part of Ethereum or if it is a language for multiple platforms. Maybe you are interested to comment on the suggestion to merge the two articles. Maybe your technical knowledge might be useful here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources

I think you've misread WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. These sources (Kickstarter, Indiegogo) are separate from the subject itself. The subject cannot influence or change what's listed on these sites, as they are out of the project's control. This isn't the same as sourcing it to the project's own webpage. -- ferret (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: Ok, I'll buy that!

August 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on IOTA (technology). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]