User talk:Litesand

January 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Cryptocurrency. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you explain your attempted edit at Talk:Cryptocurrency. Particularly, you need to explain where in that chart it indicates that miners do not have a financial incentive to provide security of the ledger once mining is profitable. —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Fred, miners ONLY have a financial incentive to provide maintenance for the ledger until it is profitable to do so. Once the profit is no longer an option, miners no longer have an incentive to maintain the ledger and the ledger is no longer valid. I’d like to hear your thoughts on this with specific logic statements and a reference. The old statement was "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger." vs. The new statement is "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger until mining is profitable." The old statement assumes an indefinite lifespan of the system and is false by default. Let me know your thoughts, thanks [1] Litesand (talk)

Those first two statements are contradictory. —C.Fred (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - @C.Fred:First, hard costs clearly define a link between profitability - the hard costs are one indispensable element of profitability and revenue is another. Once the costs exceed revenue, no miner can or would want to stay in business to supply ledger maintenance, basically there is no reason to do that job any longer. Second, yes miners would be interested in providing maintenance if it were profitable, and not when it isn't is. This is exactly my argument. Yes, my statement also implies that miners will not have a financial incentive to provide the service once new mining is either theoretically impossible or not profitable. I agree, while "instead" of "until" may work better, people had deleted my correction and I had to resort to the simplest wording possible. Yes, it would help to have a consensus, and I hope you can see why. Maybe you can recommend a better statement that can clarify the finite nature of the system is directly linked to the profitability of miners. For now, I think we have an agreement that this statement is ok with you - "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger while mining is profitable." Thanks. Litesand (talk)

Blockchain and cryptocurrencies general sanctions alert

Please read this notice carefully.

You are receiving this notice because you recently edited one or more pages relating to blockchain or cryptocurrencies topics. You have not done anything wrong. We just want to alert you that "general" sanctions are authorized for certain types of edits to those pages.

A community decision has authorized the use of general sanctions for pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after the editor has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Retimuko (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again: stop edit warring.

You are clearly edit warring repeatedly over at Big_Tech. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Big_Tech&diff=961742948&oldid=961720926 Again, see edit warring. Note previous warning. 50.201.195.170 (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NeighborCity

Hi, the above article is not eligible for PROD deletion. If you wish for it to be deleted, please follow WP:AFDHOWTO Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Thank you for the message. This company referenced in the article is defunct, the domain currently points to another unrelated entity. Web domain names are not protected by copyright law. There is no longer a trademark or an owner that protects the name NeighborCity and there is no such word or term in the common vocabulary. If the domain was operated by someone as a NeighborCity, then yes I can see why it cannot be removed. The common sense tells me that the right to be forgotten is a human right and it may extend to corporate entities. Also, the mere forwarding of a domain is not an extension of a defunct trademark. If one was to merely purchase a www.uber.com domain name, that would not entitle her to the full benefits of the Uber trademark, for example. This particular proposed WP:AFD may require a wider consensus. Can you please help me understand why you believe NeighborCity article is not eligible for a simple deletion? Is there another Wiki editor who can confirm your position?--Litesand (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because PROD is a one-time process. It has already had a PROD and was contested. See [2]. Please also see WP:PROD where the 2nd paragraph explicitly states that you can't reinstate the PROD. Once it's removed, that's final. You need to use AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Understood. Other than the WP:AFD formality, do you have any objections for removal of this article? Meaning, do we want to keep a reference to a defunct trademark on Wiki? Do you think it may have any value? It seems like an outdated information. --Litesand (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it was notable once then, per WP:NTEMP, it is always notable. For example, Woolworths is now defunct but few would argue for its deletion given that it was once one of the largest and most recognisable companies in the UK. With that being said, I'm not 100% sure if NeighborCity passes WP:NCORP. There is certainly some coverage but whether it passes WP:CORPDEPTH requirements is perhaps debatable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: @Spiderone: WP:NTEMP says that old content is not always notable by default, but the standard of care is higher for the content that was notable in the past compared to something that was never notable, which makes sense. Let it reman as-is - if someone else wants to delete it, they can do a proposed WP:AFD. Best, --Litesand (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Your edit to Realtor.com has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Galobtter (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Realtor.com, Rocket, and Redfin

Wanted to stop by and let you know that your recent edits to these pages were reverted for a number of reasons. We do not put license numbers in Wikipedia and much of what you wrote is WP:OR using primary sources. For Redfin, we do not create controversy sections and instead add content to other areas from a neutral point of view. CNMall41 (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a reply for you on your page. Your opinion is inaccurate. The information I reference is not WP:OR but you may suggest specific adjustments to content. Under no circumstances are you to purely revert my edits. Litesand (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion but that is not how this works. Per WP:ONUS, it would be up to you to suggest any changes you want per WP:ONUS since the information is now disputed. You can use the talk page of each article to do so but please be aware of WP:EW. I also want to point out that I am reverting this edit to the Digital economy page which falls under editorializing. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the Realtor.com discussion, I would recommend putting this into its own section as your comment is in the middle of a closed out edit request. Would be better for a new section so that other editors can opine. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added discussions for all four reverts you suggested. Go ahead and comment as to what exactly you'd like to change and why. I do want to address the problems you point out, but the origin (and scope) of things such as Redfin Partner Program, Rocket Homes, UpNest, Opcity, and Uber is undisputed. One way or another, these things exist in violation of consumer (antitrust) protection laws and consumers must be made aware of these issues on Wikipedia for their own protection. These violations, investigations, third-party opinions (secondary sources) are viable and can be documented on Wiki, especially, as opposed to BS published by the wire fraud schemes themselves, trying to hide this information.

As far as Wiki rules, sure the content may have to be presented differently, however, you may not simply claim to "dispute" something that exists from primary sources, or the facts that exists under primary sources. Merely because UpNest claims to offer a "marketplace for real estate agents" does not make it so if another source (the State of California) classifies UpNest as a broker. The State of California supercedes any bullshit UpNest publishes about itself in violation of Lanham Act, or Sherman Act, or RESPA. You must be very careful to approach my content in a blanket attempt to delete it because it is accurate. Litesand (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting the discussions on the talk page where the content can be discussed. On a side note, please see WP:RGW regarding your statement about "consumers must be aware of these issues on Wikipedia." As far as conduct, saying things such as "Under no circumstances are you", "you may not simply claim", "blanket attempt to delete," and others is not something that advances conversations. Please refrain from doing so an engage in a WP:CIVIL manner.

@CNMall41: OK, lets agree to start over, I'd like to resolve this in a WP:CIVIL manner, I am simply arguing that you did not provide for a clear argument for deletion, or rather a constructive change, but that does not mean that we can't arrive at one. Further, I am a casual editor, not familiar with all the rules. WP:RGW is not as much of an issue in this case, rather than merely clarifying details on "designations." For instance, your reverse edit on gig economy is without merit. I am clarifying a simple fact that no gig platform actually hires gig workers - gig workers and riders are user groups of the platform. This is a fact, you can easily check Uber ToS and verify this. As far as clarifying that Opcity and UpNest are brokers, well, consumers should know that they are hiring two brokers for the work of one. The fact that Opcity and UpNest are brokers is verifiable information from a highly credible and public source - TREC and CA-DRE. If you notice, I am simply applying a more reliable or credible sources that designate entities correctly. Real estate broker vs. two-sided platform in case of Opcity, well, Opcity is a broker. Two-sided platform vs transportation service in case of Uber, well, Uber does not provide services of transportation and it does not hire drivers as either employees or contractors - it serves users in a vertical relationship. Gig work is facilitated by digital platform, but platform offers information services, rather than products or services. Diva is a transportation company, on the other hand, unlike Uber (see Diva Limousine, Ltd. v. Uber Techs., Inc., 392 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (N.D. Cal. 2019)) The WP:RGW is something else, and I do not engage in WP:RGW. Litesand (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]