Talk:Ethos Capital

I suggest that the reference to "keypointsabout.org" be removed, so the "unreliable sources" warning can be cleared. Bill Woodcock (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Edits/content removal

Hi @BarisTulip, you've recently made large-scale edits to this page that nominally "improved" the article but also removed large amounts of content. The first time you did so, I reverted you, asking for an explanation. You have just gone ahead and made the same/similar edit, again with a cryptic edit summary. Please explain your intentions here before proceeding to make the same edit again. Thank you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Re: Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, thank you so much for your input and help with this. I am not connected to the subject (ethos or any of its' officers) but I do work for ICANN. I'm not asked by anyone to make these edits. I'm doing it on my own to improve the Ethos article so that it doesn't just give the impression that Ethos was set up with the sole intention of acquiring the .org domain. I personally don't think it's fair how the current content on the page reflects on Ethos or ICANN (whose officer was connected to Ethos).

Earlier versions of this page definitely had more balanced and factual content. The page as it exists now is just negative commentary that puts Ethos, ICANN, their officers in a negative light implying that everyone was involved in corruption and had nefarious intents.

Please let me know what I need to do to update the content of this page. Is it just because of the portions I deleted? If I edit those portions and post content that accurately reflects Ethos, would that be acceptable to you?

Please let me know :) BarisTulip(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @BarisTulip, it isn't clear to me what you're hoping to change on the article. In your previous edits, you basically deleted a bunch of content as well as some references. Please answer this:

Is any of the content currently in the article factually inaccurate? If not, how is it unfair to anyone?

In previous versions of the page, was there content that balanced out what is currently there, and was this deleted?

Is there additional content you want to add to the article, in order to improve it?

Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

— Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku, below are the answers.

Is any of the content currently in the article factually inaccurate? If not, how is it unfair to anyone? - Yes. The current version says that 'founded in 2019 for the purpose of gaining control of the .org internet domain name and capitalizing upon it...', which is not correct. Ethos is an investment firm invested in a lot more than just trying to win control of the .org domain, which should be mentioned in the article.

In previous versions of the page, was there content that balanced out what is currently there, and was this deleted? - Yes, there was an earlier version that was more balanced out and it was replaced by an IP Address. This was the last good version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethos_Capital&oldid=1034690894

You can restore this one if you like. This version mentions what Ethos is + also mentions the .org deal.

Is there additional content you want to add to the article, in order to improve it? - More than adding any new content, I think restoring it to an earlier version that was more balanced out would be preferrable. I don't know how to restore an older version, therefore, thought that I could just make a new edit. If you could restore the earlier version cited above, that would be the most preferrable option here.

Please let me know. - BarisTulip (talk)

@BarisTulip, I've made a minor modification to the introductory sentence. Let me know what you think. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Revirvlkodlaku Thank you for the edit you made. Another thing, there are 3 paragraphs on the page and all three refer to the same effort to buy the .org domain. That seems a bit repetitive. Wouldn't it be better to just have it in one of the three paragraphs rather than in all three? - BarisTulip (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @BarisTulip, I only see it mentioned in the lead paragraph and in History. Am I missing something? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)