When you go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_economy_movement you get redirected to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economy_Coalition#New_economy_movement which is pretty bad.
Does anybody know how to fix that?
On the NEM wiki page it is written in the box on the right:
"Protocol Technology: Block Chain"
How does that make sense? "Block chain" is not a "protocol technology" in my opinion.
And I like the way Bitcoin is described in the box regarding subunits and symbols a lot more.
[url=http://postimg.org/image/py00cqce3/]
What do you think?
When you go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_economy_movement you get redirected to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economy_Coalition#New_economy_movement which is pretty bad.
Does anybody know how to fix that?
I think just putting a link on their page to ours might work as I think 99% of people that search us will search "NEM". Still... we need that 1%. hahaha. We can make the page that gives people two options, or put a link in their page to ours, but I say we wait until after launch.
We can make the page that gives people two options
I think thats the way to go and that page is called a disambiguation page.
I dont know why we shouldnt do it now. Do it right from the beginning on...
When you go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_economy_movement you get redirected to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economy_Coalition#New_economy_movement which is pretty bad.
Does anybody know how to fix that?
Fixed. Try clicking the url now. ;)
Perfect, thank you!
Now, what about this?
Btw the last to points are added as a foodnote in that infobox. That is dirty anyways.
On the NEM wiki page it is written in the box on the right:
"Protocol Technology: Block Chain"
How does that make sense? "Block chain" is not a "protocol technology" in my opinion.
And I like the way Bitcoin is described in the box regarding subunits and symbols a lot more.
[url=http://postimg.org/image/py00cqce3/]
What do you think?
Perfect, thank you!
Now, what about this?
Btw the last to points are added as a foodnote in that infobox. That is dirty anyways.
On the NEM wiki page it is written in the box on the right:
"Protocol Technology: Block Chain"
How does that make sense? "Block chain" is not a "protocol technology" in my opinion.
And I like the way Bitcoin is described in the box regarding subunits and symbols a lot more.
[url=http://postimg.org/image/py00cqce3/][img width=180 height=138]http://s17.postimg.org/py00cqce3/bitcoin_box.jpg[/img]
What do you think?
subunits in Bitcoin is scientific notation. We should use "layman" notation.
As for symbol, we should not confuse the market with too many symbols. Stick to one and mention it enough and we should be all right.
Change the Block Chain Technology.
I have problems with these infoboxes… Does anybody know how to handle them? It seems you can't just add parameters how you like.
What is layman notation?
you can't just add the information you want. I found a template off of wiki somewhere when making it, it was something like a currency box template. they want standardization across some articles so the reader can compare easily.
here is the template. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_currency
The reason being that Bitcoin is more complicated in its schema and we are more simple. Scientific notation while being much better for those formally educated in math, is confusing for the other 99% that isn't. But most everyone can understand decimal points.
Technically according to the wikiguidlines we are supposed to write the subunit in the format of 1/100, 1/20, 1/240, but that just doesn't work well for us. Actually, the only coin that follows the guidelines is NXT. hahaha
Should we follow the guidelines?
That would mean we would use 1/1000 and 1/1,000,000 for our subunits.
I think this part should not be under "Code", but under "Architecture":
The advantage of this architecture is that the NCC acts as a wallet and can be used on any computer, whereas the NIS represents a node on the NEM network and can be hosted from remote locations. The client can be loaded onto any computer and a person's wallet can be reloaded as long as they have their private key. This is an important distinction from other platforms which use brain wallets.
Or not?
I think this part should not be under "Code", but under "Architecture":The advantage of this architecture is that the NCC acts as a wallet and can be used on any computer, whereas the NIS represents a node on the NEM network and can be hosted from remote locations. The client can be loaded onto any computer and a person's wallet can be reloaded as long as they have their private key. This is an important distinction from other platforms which use brain wallets.
Or not?
okay, I will switch it. at an earlier time that was all one section.
we're marked for deletion. Mostly because the guy seems to be some anal nutbag.
His reasoning is NEM isn't launched as a currency yet and most of our reception comes from blogs.
Maybe we should put more emphasis on the movement NEM and make the currency XEM only a part of that page.
we're marked for deletion. Mostly because the guy seems to be some anal nutbag.
His reasoning is NEM isn't launched as a currency yet and most of our reception comes from blogs.
Maybe we should put more emphasis on the movement NEM and make the currency XEM only a part of that page.
Yes this is true for the german wiki article. I already commented on that:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%C3%B6schkandidaten/11._Januar_2015#NEM_-_New_Economy_Movement
I saw the "marked for deletion" thing and was pretty sad.
to be fair, you can't have citations of blogs. that is a big foul. and you can't really use citations from your own webpages, forums, ect.
citations really need to be from reputable 3rd party sources.
I actually wasn't going to start the English wiki until we launched. Our English wiki got deleted actually, but then I reinstated it. Hahahaha. Then I fakely yelled at Shawn to act like we were going to make it right. Luckily I have been on wiki for more than 10 years and have started a few other articles, so somebody that has only been there for 5 years gets a little nervous deleting the article I put up I think (just my theory).
There is a chance it gets deleted. Like half of my pages have been deleted. Don't worry about though. The day after launch we can get a bunch of third party citations and put it right back up.
Edit: Just noticed it actually has been deleted. I know this is sooooooo frustrating to work sooooo hard and see some shithead delete the page. I would be pretty worked up about it.
But like I said man, we will get that page back up. The English NEM page has been deleted but now it is doing okay. The longer it stays, the safer it is.
It isn't deleted (yet?). Still just marked for deletion. I answered the deletion discussion but so far the guy didn't answer again. We will see.
Of course it is a bit frustrating, but Im not that emotional type of person and I know our references are bad. So after launch when we have good references, that page will be up again and will stay. No problem… 
My translation work was not for nothing.
Edit: I linked it to the english article. Maybe he gets nervous about that 10 year experienced wikipedia dude now 
It isn't deleted (yet?). Still just marked for deletion. I answered the deletion discussion but so far the guy didn't answer again. We will see.
Of course it is a bit frustrating, but Im not that emotional type of person and I know our references are bad. So after launch when we have good references, that page will be up again and will stay. No problem... ;) My translation work was not for nothing.
Edit: I linked it to the english article. Maybe he gets nervous about that 10 year experienced wikipedia dude now :D
Where is it marked for deletion? We can unmark it as an objection against deletion.
we're marked for deletion. Mostly because the guy seems to be some anal nutbag.
His reasoning is NEM isn't launched as a currency yet and most of our reception comes from blogs.
Maybe we should put more emphasis on the movement NEM and make the currency XEM only a part of that page.
That does not give him the anal right to delete.
Well bad references are indeed a reason for deleting a wikipedia article…
At least if it gets deleted lets make sure we have everything saved so we can put it back up as soon as we launch.