We are 100% user-supported!
Without you, there is no RationalWiki!
| Goal: $5000 | Donations so far: $2750 | ||
| |||
Help and donate today!
User talk:David Gerard
|
[edit] Claim your brand new "Get out of inane discussion free"-card
| Never fear — Aneris ✻ is on the case! He will not rest until the guilty parties have been identified and brought to |
I wish I knew how to make it not align to centre. Too poor at HTML/CSS for that simple maneuver. Oh well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have added the requisite ✻ - David Gerard (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- I got the idea this morning while sitting in the tub. Glad you liked it — and thanks for improving it!
- And please let me know if you think the template should be made to respect indentation (it currently does not). If so, maybe you or some other crafty person could help me figure out how to make it do that? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- I got the idea this morning while sitting in the tub. Glad you liked it — and thanks for improving it!
[edit] Spare some change?
I've noticed you've been keeping up the good work on our Bitcoin article. As someone who is interested, but no expert on the matter, I was wondering what you make of these three statements on Bitcoins generally?
On an editorial point, would you agree that this section of text could make it in the Bitcoin article? I think so (but Deku finds that it misleadingly portrays Bitcoin markets as unreliable, or something to that effect). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's fucking saturated with scams. I'm attempting to write a short book about Bitcoin and asked about just the scams on Reddit and holy shit. In the darknet market, "exit scams", i.e. the DNM just disappears with everyone's Bitcoins (pretty much no other cryptocurrency is used in practice), are a frequent occurrence - David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- I take it you disagree with Deku-Shrub on the issue, then. That makes two of us. Does the reverted portion on scams belong in the Deep Web article or the Bitcoin article, then? I could see it fitting into both, honestly. Perhaps it'd go best in the Bitcoin article? Also, great stuff about that book! Despite my ADHD — if you want to add another proofreader to your roster, toss me a preview ex online and I'll gladly read it with my keen eye for detail and provide my humble feedback and/or puns. Just an offer. Regardless, I'll want to get my hands on a copy when the book comes out. Keep me posted, as always. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- The Bitcoin article has long been missing a proper section on the scams (which is to my mind the thing keeping it from gold). The Bitcoin-related DNM scams (mostly exit scams) are DNM-specific and belong there, though a mention in the Bitcoin article is appropriate - David Gerard (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, David. So, do you figure the scam section linked above should be re-instated in a Deep Web article, or adapted to the Bitcoin article? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'd say it totally belongs in there. It turns out a marketplace full of anonymous criminal activity will have a non-negligible proportion of scammy assholes - David Gerard (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- My thoughts exactly. I'll reinstate it, then. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'd say it totally belongs in there. It turns out a marketplace full of anonymous criminal activity will have a non-negligible proportion of scammy assholes - David Gerard (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, David. So, do you figure the scam section linked above should be re-instated in a Deep Web article, or adapted to the Bitcoin article? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- The Bitcoin article has long been missing a proper section on the scams (which is to my mind the thing keeping it from gold). The Bitcoin-related DNM scams (mostly exit scams) are DNM-specific and belong there, though a mention in the Bitcoin article is appropriate - David Gerard (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I take it you disagree with Deku-Shrub on the issue, then. That makes two of us. Does the reverted portion on scams belong in the Deep Web article or the Bitcoin article, then? I could see it fitting into both, honestly. Perhaps it'd go best in the Bitcoin article? Also, great stuff about that book! Despite my ADHD — if you want to add another proofreader to your roster, toss me a preview ex online and I'll gladly read it with my keen eye for detail and provide my humble feedback and/or puns. Just an offer. Regardless, I'll want to get my hands on a copy when the book comes out. Keep me posted, as always. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
[edit] Since I'm here
Your favorite editor has decided to offically call for our collective attention. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)