Talk:Telegram (software)

Non profit????

The very large ICO documented here

• Even as Bitcoin Languishes, Telegram Raises $1.7 Billion Ahead of Largest ICO Ever Fortune Magazine, Lucinda Shen, March 30, 2018

raises questions about the claim in the lede that Telegram is a non-profit. Investors don't invest this type of money in a non-profit. Don't have time now, but this needs to be looked at. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, some of this is crystal clear. The firm is not a non-profit, so we certainly cannot say that it is in the 1st 3 words of the article. See

• Dewey, Caitlin (November 23, 2015). "The secret American origins of Telegram, the encrypted messaging app favored by the Islamic State". Washington Post. Retrieved 31 March 2018.

I'd also like to point out that I've been reverted on this 3 times now, so the next time the reverter will be in violation of 3RR, and I will report it. Edit warriors generally can't count, so I've been accused of edit warring. For the record, I've reverted him just now for the 3rd time. Blatant falsehoods simply cannot be left in the article. Now please calm down and discuss this rationally. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• The messenger itself is non-commercial. Telegram Messenger LLP is a commercial company. They make a profit with cryptocurrency Gram, not with messenger. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 09:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • So we are in agreement that the company is *not* a non-profit. I did notice that you just reverted somebody else in the article. 4 reverts is still 4 reverts, I suggest you self-revert. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Article about the messenger, not the company. Read carefully, it is not relevant to the topic. I'll remove it again tomorrow.Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Nope, the article is about the company and its product. Otherwise we couldn't discuss the company's "CEO" or "employees" or state "Telegram is registered as both an English LLP[31] and an American LLC.[32]". Even the term "non-profit" refers to a type of organization. Nice try though. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Just to underline that - please check out the wikilink and the refs, which all refer to non-profit organizations, in the text you reverted back in. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"Telegram is a non-profit"

"Telegram is a cloud-based instant messaging service." It's about the messenger, not the company. Why did you remove it? Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Please stop talking nonsense. You removed it [1].[2], [3]. I've only removed the part about them being a Nonprofit organization. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I returned it: "Telegram is a non-profit(!) cloud-based instant messaging service." Also see WP:CIVIL. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Given all this confusion, is the matter important enough for the opening paragraph? I think it's not. Being non-profit is unorthodox enough to be covered right at the top, but companies (messaging or otherwise) are generally assumed to be structured in a traditional for-profit way. So not being non-profit hardly merits the premium real estate.

I agree with Smallbones that we should not use the term "non-profit" for Telegram since it implies a very different type of organization. I also agree with NightShadow23 that Telegram's structure does not exactly match the standard for-profit model either (it's self-funded, has no VC money, operates from a cloud of shell companies constantly switching places). From what I could read in their FAQ, it doesn't seem to claim they are non-profit. Rather, there's a mention that "making profits will never be an end-goal for Telegram" (emphasis mine) – but it is open to the possibility of Telegram making money "to support the infrastructure and finance developer salaries". There is no contradiction to this in the leaked ICO Primer, which states on page 17 that "more than 80 percent of collected funds will be spent on equipment, bandwidth, colocation, and user verification costs [for Telegram and TON]. The rest will be allocated for wages, offices, and legal and consulting services." (Of course, this Primer has to be taken with a grain of salt due to its questionable status as a leaked document, but still).

So there are definitely many ways of looking at this issue. I think it's best if we cover it properly in a different section of the article and keep only the crystal-clear stuff in the opening section. I guess I'll make a bold edit to resolve this now. Thanks @Smallbones: for bringing up the topic and @NightShadow23: for making some good points! JudgeGregg (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree. The initial funding is explained, but the ongoing source of operating revenue is not. My assumption is that the company is selling contact information, like all the messaging/social media platforms. Also, ! didn't like the doubts raised about the security of the chats. Thank you, Wikipedia for that. Nigelrg (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to say that I astonished a neighbor by telegramming him. He thought his contact data was secure, but Telegram found him easily. Nigelrg (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

References

I suggest that a separate sub-chapter about the financial model should be added. If it is not sufficiently available, it should be explicitly said. Concerning some other secure messaging apps, in Wikipedia, there is a separate chapter about the financial model. I disagree with those above who say that this question is not relevant. It indirectly concerns security and it is not enough to know that the money comes from a private company. Jüri Eintalu (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Security

Security researcher Moxie Marlinspike [...] criticized the first contest for being rigged or framed in Telegram's favor and said that Telegram's statements on the value of these contests as proof of the cryptography's quality are misleading.

Maybe would be better to add an info that Marlinspike is the creator of a competing messenger app. Security researcher sounds like he is a neutral individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.25.21.165 (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

That's actually a good point. Why was is this being ignored since 2.5 years? --FunkyMartian (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

- There is such a security factor as plausible deniability. It has not been mentioned in the present text. As Telegram has many features like groups, channels, stickers, etc, and because of that, it has a huge number of users, it creates a plausible deniability that the user has nothing special to hide. Therefore, it has been overestimated that the app does not have encryption by default.

- In the text, it has not been mentioned that Telegram has a passworded screenlock (just like Signal has) and that even the desktop version of Telegram has it. Many encrypted messengers fail to have the password lock on desktop version.

- There is one indirect security feature that seems to be missing in the case of Telegram: clarity of the financial model. It is weird, that in the present text there are only few words about the financial model of Telegram. Concerning some other secure messaging apps, in Wikipedia, there is a special sub-chapter about the financial model. As it is expensive to maintain large amount of servers, someone has to finance it, and the financial model is relevant to the question of security of the app. I disagree with those who write that this question is irrelevant or that if the app is not state-financed, it is automatically OK. See also discussion "Non-Profit..." above.

Jüri Eintalu (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 19 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 15:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Telegram (service) → Telegram (software) – Much better suited and more consistent ממשמזמן (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - it's a company as well as software; the software, company and protocol are all bundled up into one pile. "Service" isn't ideal, but I can't think of a better disambiguator - David Gerard (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Strong support it can't stay where it is, the original paper telegram is also a service. Telegram (instant messaging app) would do it as well. Anyway, must be moved. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support a move of some kind per In ictu oculi. Proposed title may not be ideal but it's better than the one we have now. PC78 (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom --Ortizesp (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support, but would prefer Telegram (messaging app). "Service" could apply to traditional telegrams, and so is unclear. "Software" is not as WP:NATURAL, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, nor common as it being referred to as a "messaging app". -- Netoholic @ 03:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: In my opinion, "messaging app" sounds a bit too unformal. --ממשמזמן (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: For anyone interested, there's a similar move/merge proposal of this topic at BlackBerry Messenger and Instant messaging. --ממשמזמן (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Server-side code

Publishing the server-side code would allow anyone to audit the server's code and verify that it works correctly and handles user data securely, instead of relying on Telegram's claims that it's indeed secure.

This is technically wrong since there is no way for "anyone" to verify that the actual code running on the server matches the published code (assuming it were public). The sentence makes it sound like Telegram is withholding an important "transparency factor" when, actually, publishing the server-side code would not give any more guarantees to the users. Also, having the server-side code is not necessary for things like e2e encryption (once you verify that your client is only exchanging the key with the other person and not sending any more information to the server, it doesn't matter what the server is doing). William Di Luigi (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Brazilian Judge and Prosecutor chat leakage

The Intercept leaked telegram chats about a huge case in Brazil:

https://theintercept.com/series/secret-brazil-archive/

Glenn Greenwald reports here that the leaked file is bigger than the one in Snowden case.

There is no information about how the hack occurred, but I imagine it could had been by SIM swap, and the chat could had been retrieved from Telegram server.

–Arthurfragoso (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Is wikipedia a commercial site for unsecure sites?

Most links on the References form of the Telegram entry are from sites, that

1. distribute APKs which are officially not supported 2. have NO visible WhoIS entries (like apkmirror.com, where the owner is nowhere visible and NO, google is not the owner) 3. distribute most likely malware/adware in their downloads

Could an admin kill the entries, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:6F5E:9900:B02E:6B8A:4425:20E1 (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Notable users

I think this article could be improved by a 'notable users' link section. Thoughts? ChristopherCantwell (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• I checked out the paragraph on Notable Users. As of today (Jan 5, 2020), the list is 8-person long, 7 of which are extreme right-wing individuals. What criterion lead to the hand-picking of those 8 individuals, out of the 300+ Million users the platform counts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.154.167.11 (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  If we're going to add a a "Notable Users" section, may I suggest that we add notorious members from OGUsers and the SIM Swapping community (Graham Ivan Clark, Ellis Pinsky, etc.)? Cybercriminals in general make up a larger portion of Telegram's userbase than "far-right" groups, and are of much more note. 2601:644:9184:5EF0:7316:D62F:83A:63CA (talk) 05:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

which one is copyrighted

there are two links which one has copyright problem figaru or reuters? @Sphilbrick: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Telegram_(software)&diff=973309553&oldid=973302944 Baratiiman (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Baratiiman, I identified the url in my edit summary this site S Philbrick(Talk) 16:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick i copied it from spanish wikipedia why is it not removed from there Baratiiman (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Baratiiman, Because I don't have anything to do with the Spanish Wikipedia. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Baratiiman, If you copied material within Wikipedia, you need to identify the source for attribution purposes. For future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

iOS client doesn't seem libre

The old repo (before Telegram X replaced it) is archived.

The new repo doesn't have a license: https://github.com/overtake/TelegramSwift

--Tuxayo (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Isn't this what you're looking for? https://github.com/overtake/TelegramSwift/blob/master/LICENSE

ASpacemanFalls (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Censorship section mix

Censorship section seems to mix state and non-state actors. I suggest splitting it into two: Censorship by governments and Use by radical and illegal groups. Bezymov (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, though the government part would need to have sub-sections still, quite a lot of info there. The latter can probably be compacted into a single section. Could be a start on getting this in order, some of the messaging app pages are a bit of a mess, this one included. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

After a deeper look, I'd actually suggest splitting into more than two sections considering its current content, perhaps? As it stands, it has sections specifically about state censorship (in protests, regular, etc), use by radical groups, and, for some reason, bits like the one on a Puerto Rico scandal where there's no mention of censorship. I'll reformat it to have the two sections but not sure what to do about those bits that don't really fit the 'Censorship' theme. Maybe they could be a footnote in a different section? ASpacemanFalls (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Messy state of the article

This article needs a makeover and I definitely can't do it alone. It's had a lot of information added by a lot of passionate editors. Even though everyone means well, it seems that there have been slip-ups when it comes to following the style manual. I can't polish it all myself - not while keeping my job, anyway - so I need help. Maybe we should start with the Features category and clean that up, and could even reorder it to list features everyone would use before stuff only techies would use (like IFTTT). Ideas for structuring it all are totally welcome. Who's in? Alphavano (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Someone suggested the same for the Censorship section above and I supported that with the addendum that it should be applied to the whole page. This isn't the only app page that needs pruning and grooming, but I agree it's in a pretty dramatic state as opposed to the rest. Doesn't look like too many are eager to take up this call. Maybe we should ping older editors who contributed to this page. Or post somewhere like Reddit, it probably has some people who could help, at least, give suggestions and tips on what the page lacks. For now, I'd definitely say it's a good idea to ping some of the older editors as well as the current ones and see who's up to the task. Will do that now.ASpacemanFalls (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Spaceman. Maybe it's time I take another look at Reddit. Alphavano (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit rusty, haven't edited anything for more than two years at the time of Spaceman's ping, but I'll see what I can do here. It definitely appears that this entire entry doesn't conform to WP:5P on multiple (not to say innumerous) counts. In fact, I wouldn't go anywhere beyond the lead section for now. Will make a new section here to discuss some of the important issues there. JudgeGregg (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back, your honour. The whole article's a mess of stuff added over time, but I guess the opening is a good a place to start as any. Alphavano (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Controversies in Lead Section, part I: Russia

I noticed there was a recent "edit war", with Alphavano (talk · contribs) suggesting to remove from the intro mentions of "originated in Russia" and details on reception in regards to the optional End-to-End Encryption offered in the app, and AB_BLEL (talk · contribs) bringing it back (sadly, without comments), each supported by an unnamed user (with | Belgian? and | Finnish? IP addresses respectively). The best way to resolve this conflict, as mentioned in WP: Dispute Resolution (see especially "Avoiding Edit Wars"), would've been to create a discussion here, on the talk page – and reach a consensus, instead of engaging in back and forth edits. I urge my fellow editors to do just that!

As for the issues at hand, the WP: Manual of Style / Lead Section clearly dictates that the intro "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarise the most important points, including prominent controversies". Given the app's history, I would argue that the Russian origins of its creators can be considered a "prominent controversy", which deserves some attention in the intro. I'd say, Alphavano was not right to remove that info. That said, AB BEL's "originated in Russia" is incomplete and may mislead readers. Alphavano should've improved the part instead or trying to remove it. A few google searches show that we have good sources that sum up Telegram's history and relationship with Russia pretty well. I'm not entirely convinced we need to mention the unsuccessful block in the intro since it's been lifted already – maybe best left in its appropriate section, further down the page. It would be necessary, however, to also include the firm's current seat, which still looks like it's Dubai. I guess I might as well go and make that edit now. :)

(Started typing out my thoughts re: the End-to-End Encryption issue in the intro, but decided it would be better to get a separate section for that, to make discussion easier.) JudgeGregg (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Started making the edit but, checking sources, I can't find anything that points to Telegram being created/founded in Russia. I always assumed it got started there because Telegram was founded in 2013 and Pavel Durov himself seemed to have left Russia in 2014. But one of the earliest mentions of Telegram in the press archives says, two months after it had been founded: "Another lesson Telegram’s team learned from its experience with VK is to stay clear of Russia’s government. The app rents data centers and servers around the world, including in London, San Francisco, Singapore and Helsinki. “As a foreign company and offshore entity we will not be obliged to comply with the rules of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and countries like that,” says Durov." My quick searches didn't yield sources that contradict this except the Telegram wiki page itself (which supports the claim with a link to a Forbes profile that doesn't include the info and two broken Reuters links), as well as some mentions in the lesser media that seem to have been copied from the wiki page. Fellow editors, please point me in the right direction if I'm wrong. For now, will just add the Dubai base to the intro. JudgeGregg (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still learning some of the ropes here re: disputes. For the intro, I was trying to get this page more in line with other pages like Discord, where I've been trying to spruce the page up a bit. I thought that when things weren't really cited they should be removed - I'll be a little more careful with the backspace. I noticed that there's duplicate info in the opening now, though. Alphavano (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I've noted this section and did my best to give the lead section a facelift, however, I still have some minor qualms with it. Forgive me if this is too pedantic but the wording of "The app launched in [...], and is now based in Dubai" irks me as it's not the app but rather the company that created it. So I'll look at some pages of similar messengers and, if my hunch is correct and the wording is different there, rewrite that sentence. I'll leave the info intact, just separate it so it goes like "The app launched in [...]. The company is currently based in Dubai." instead. On a less important note, is the mention of the Windows Phone platform crucial enough for the intro section? If the platform is defunct, it's no longer as relevant as Android/iOS. Lastly, I'd appreciate it if anyone can help me find a source on when exactly the Android version launched (one that doesn't come from Telegram's own retrospective.) ASpacemanFalls (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Controversies in Lead Section, part II: End-to-End Encryption

(I'm making this a separate section for ease of subsequent discussion. Please see the opening from Part I for context.)

The End-to-End Encryption issue is less clear-cut. I can see why the unknown Finnish IP owner would like to drive home the point that apps that use E2EE everywhere are more secure than apps that don't. However, I don't see Telegram stating the opposite on the App Store or their website, including in the referenced FAQ section. Telegram also doesn't seem to claim it has E2EE where it doesn't (as always, please correct me if I'm wrong!). For these reasons, I feel that we are at risk of violating WP: Neutral Point Of View, which states that "achieving... neutrality means carefully and critically analysing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." and "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." My personal opinion is that it could be debatable that E2EE needs a mention in the intro as one of the "prominent controversies" (beyond the need for stating clearly that the E2EE offered by the app is optional, as well as where it uses E2EE – in secret chats, voice and video calls). Nevertheless, despite this personal opinion, I agree that we should keep a mention of the E2EE issue in the intro, but we should also do that upholding the 5 pillars, most importantly, Neutral Point of View and WP: Original Research. That said, I've given enough of my Saturday to these matters :) and will leave this rest for now, and welcome your comments. Gregg out. JudgeGregg (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

References

As the person behind the edits, let me explain. People do not study cryptography, computer science, network security, protocol design etc. as part of their basic education. Average person does not understand the difference between end-to-end encryption, and standard encryption. To them encryption means "private". When they want encrypted communication, they generally want end-to-end encryption. People don't e.g. like the fact Facebook eavesdrops on their private messaging, and tracks them across the web, although everything related to that is encrypted, always, without exceptions.

The fact it's controversial to say client-server encryption means server will have access to the decryption key, already proves there's a problem. The decision to omit this piece of information is dangerous, and invites every user who does not understand the distinction between the two, to place false trust on the protocol. I have had to explain telegram is not E2EE to dozens of peers who study computer science, and it has come as a shock to them. Average user will understand even less about the topic.

If explaining what something means in Wikipedia is considered bias, then its time the editors do some introspection.

Telegram's security is extremely controversial subject, and omitting it completely from the introductory chapter, is extremely dangerous. There are multiple security researchers who will tell you the first thing to know about the app is it's insecure. Omitting all references to the section about security in the summary is to pretend the section about privacy/security controversies at the bottom of the wiki article does not exist. There are lots of users who become convinced Telegram is suitable for their needs half-way through the 20 subsection long feature list: they will never even reach the security issues section.

This is because it is a known fact the human attention span is becoming shorter and shorter https://www.bbc.com/news/health-38896790

If the summary does not reflect the content of the wiki page, it is not a proper summary. Explaining the situation as "Telegram uses client-server encryption" does not convey the necessary information to average Joe. Explaining the situation as "client-server encryption means others can read your messages too" is a good explanation. It removes the necessity of obtaining a degree in computer science to understand what client-server encryption means.

Saying "client server encryption is terrible for security" would be biased, although it would also be factually correct, however, some readers for sure think it's a good service provide can scan messages for illegal content.

But now it seems even explanation of implications of technical terms is bias, and for end users, that is very similar to hiding caveats in legal fine-print.

"a variety of reliable sources"

Can you point to any study that shows Telegram's wording is clear to end users? If it is, why do so many people I've encountered had the same misconception that Telegram uses stronger encryption than WhatsApp? Where does Telegram explicitly state their full threat model: "Warning: In the event our servers were compromised, the remote attacker could access cloud messages stored on the server"? If such warning would be available anywhere in Telegram's sites, this would be a non-issue. What Telegram is actually saying on their front page is "Telegram keeps your messages safe from hacker attacks." which is impossible, as security problem of protecting a server from all malicious inputs is an intractable problem similar to halting problem. Telegram's server can not be proven to be secure, and the question is not if, but when they get hacked.

In my opinion, omitting the explanation what client-server encryption means is more political and on the side of "censorship by technobabble". Wikipedia is not an academic journal read only by people with degree on subject matter, and even an academic paper discussing end-to-end encryption would need to define the terminology.

This is especially important, as there exists no separate Wikipedia article for client-server version MTProto, and because MTProto has two variants, one is E2EE, another is client-server, and there is no clear distinction between the two, which has been especially harmful in online discussion about the matter over years. Telegram hasn't been eager to underline the difference, mostly justify their design choices with broken arguments.

Because the matter is inherently political the question is, whose side is picked. Omitting the information serves Telegram as a company, and it comes at a cost for average Joe. Including the information serves the userbase who need to be able to make an informed decision on whether the application is secure enough for their needs. I am not against Telegram, I am for transparent threat model. If Telegram does not wish to convey neutral threat model that addresses all issues transparently, that doesn't mean Wikipedia has to follow in their footsteps.

The Wikipedia:Neutral point of view article states

"Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides"

Explain is what this boils down to. Explain the controversy. I'm not asking to compare Telegram to dozens of competitors that are E2EE by default, with no option to even turn it off. I'm not even asking to explain there is a controversy. Just explain what a technical term means to the wide audience before they dive into pages long list of "cool features".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maqp2 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

You have a good point about explaining the sides without taking them. Also, I agree that “client-server/server-client encryption” is too technical for this page. Especially for the intro, it’s so difficult it almost says nothing. I think the intro could use fair and compact overview of what it means instead. We should also remember the other side of the spectrum.

For example, I’ve seen plenty of people, including journalists, say “Telegram is not encrypted” meaning not end-to-end encrypted. As someone who long ago pulled pranks on friends by reading to them the (actually) unencrypted messages they received on my home WiFi – I can attest that it is false to claim that server-client encryption is as good as no encryption at all. I know you’re not saying this in the comment above, just putting it here to establish the full context.

In my opinion, it would be correct yet neutral to mention that: 1) cloud chats and groups are encrypted between the app and the server. 2) ISPs and other third-parties on the network can’t access data. 3) The Telegram server is in possession of the decryption key.

I'll make the edit, also removing this error: “between two online users”. The other person doesn’t have to be online for you to send a message in a secret chat. Oh, and cc: Evergreenstreet for all of this, since you were the other half of this discussion, I appreciate your fervor but it does make sense to mention the decryption key bit in the intro as well as make it easier for the average Joe. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Evergreenstreet (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

ASpacemanFalls Whatever man, I was worried about the article itself, now header doesn't look nice, now it more looks like an opinion of certain people, which distracts attention span, I propose making it more delicate, shorter, simple and less redundant (I don't know how, but to all of you, the previous one was more than enough for such purpose). I don't say that we should completely remove the security hint, but in that particular revision, removal would be the right thing to do, of course if someone doesn't re-express AspacemanFalls's version in a correct way, or him/her self. Would be great if you could break-underline it with popping information in a shorter variant. I don't think the average Jane or John will fall socially vulnerable without knowing what is client-server encryption means. I won't touch a thing in that article, since it doesn't make any sense from now on, but I encourage you to make it better and shield it from haters. Thank you.

Controversies Section

On other pages like Discord, the section about an app's use is called "Reception." On this page it's called "Controversies." I'm going to change that to line it up with the style of those other pages. As well, the "Illegal Uses" subsection is all information included earlier in the article, giving it undue weight and is not sourced well (WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:PROVEIT). Going to go ahead and clean that up while I wait for lunch. Alphavano (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd dispute deleting the cryptocurrency 'pump-and-dump' mention. It's well-sourced and quite relevant, unlike the rest of that section. I'll restore that part for now, maybe someone who knows more about crypto could come and expand it to give it more weight? ASpacemanFalls (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it should at least be past tense. It's an old source. Alphavano (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, new problem. The page now has two 'Reception' sections. So we either have to merge or change this second one's name yet again. What's the best course of action? ASpacemanFalls (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The middle of a page is an awkward place for Reception. I'm going to roll them together into the section at the end. Alphavano (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Data portability

ASpacemanFalls why did you not keep data portability Baratiiman (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I kept it but transferred it to 'Cloud messaging'. Or do you mean it should also include something like "Chats are ported with all data, including media"? If yes, I can amend it, sorry. Don't really know how the function works as I haven't imported any chats yet. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Need section to describe official channels

Hi. We need to add a section to describe the role and content of official channels. there is no text currently that describes this. I tried to add the text below, but it was deleted. would it be ok for me to add this? thanks.

Telegram includes a feature known as "official channels" which allows companies, especially news media outlets, publications, and other mass media companies, to offer an official channel, which users can join, and thereby receive regular updates, published articles, or news updates from companies or news outlets. ref: Telegram Channels, official website. Accessed February 2021. (end ref)

--Sm8900 (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I was the one who removed that edit because there's this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegram_(software)#Verification They talk about the same thing and I didn't want a repeat. However, it'd maybe make sense to rework that little section to include your text. Maybe rename it from 'Verification' to something like 'Verification and Official Channels'? Just not sure it should be all that high, it's not the most relevant feature to most users. I'd put it around 2.8 maybe? ASpacemanFalls (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

sure that sounds fine. I will wait a little bit to let others comment, and then I will provide a draft version here. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Telegram Open Network (ICO)

I attempted to improve the section about the TON, and with the details on the development, the lawsuit, the consequences for Telegram, and so on. It became quite lengthy, but the context is important here. What do you think about replacing the redirect at Telegram Open Network with an article? I think it's notable enough, especially given that the development of the blockchain project itself continued without Telegram.

The bonds offering and the assumed IPO may be moved to a separate section, as they have little to do with monetization aside from the need to pay back the the debt to TON investors. Myuno (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there any precedent for branching off small (and, far as I can understand, failed) projects like this? If there is, I'd support this idea but I don't really know how common it is to do so. Their ICO does seem to take up more and more space on a page otherwise dedicated to the messenger but I wonder if removing it could be considered: a) hiding information from the reader; b)giving it too much space in the form of a separate page. WhatsApp, the closest competitor, does have several outside pages that it links to, so I'd guess it's fine, as long as it's notable. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd neither call it small nor failed. TON as software looks pretty interesting (and worth being outlined) and is now developed by other parties. The whole SEC v. Telegram story seems important for the cryptocurrency industry, as it discredited the concept of selling futures for tokens to raise money (that's emphasized by legal publications). It clearly fits the WP:NSOFT requirements.

The current section should be replaced by a) a description of TON as a failed attempt to monetize Telegram; and b) a separate "Funding" section that will mention TON, bonds offering, and probably a possible IPO (which looks more like a rumor so far). Myuno (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I reworked the Telegram Open Network section. I shortened it, yet added some details. Renamed it, because TON was designed as a platform for apps, services, and even payment processing, offering more options for monetization. Bonds offering moved to a separate section as a more traditional way to raise money. Myuno (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Android / iOS device needed for account creation

The lead and Features section said that creating a Telegram account requires an Android / iOS device. As far as I know, this is not true; only a valid mobile number is required (verification is through SMS). Does anyone know if this is a recent change or only applies in some countries? -Jose Mathew (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Please note that the above comment ("As far as I know") is indicative of "original research" (WP:OR). Wikipedia policy stipulates a requirement for reliable sources (WP:RS), with preference for secondary sources (WP:PSTS, WP:RSPRIMARY). Please do not remove material that is backed up by such sources, unless there are sources of equal or better quality that contradict it. The material you deleted was consistent with the cited source, which is still cited in the article. Therefore, I have restored the removed material. Per WP:BRD, please discuss here before further edits to the material in question, thank you. -- HLachman (talk) 09:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@HLachman:, no problem, So I am talking from my personal experience, which was in India, a couple of years ago. I am not sure if the registration policy has changed since, or if the requirement only applies in certain countries. Until we are sure about this, I feel it would be wrong to make a specific claim. This is why I replaced it with a more general statement. -Jose Mathew (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, no problem at the moment. As to whether "it would be wrong to make a specific claim", I defer to the core content policies for determining that. -- HLachman (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@HLachman:, as per core policy 2, I am challenging the specific claim. There is one source provided to back it up, but it does not claim to have verified the information across multiple countries. Therefore, unless we have this information directly from Telegram, or from a secondary source that has done tests in multiple countries, I suggest that the claim be removed. -Jose Mathew (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, your proposal is to apply a standard to the article such that wherever there's an assertion that's backed up by a source, and the source does not explicitly confirm that it covers multiple countries, that assertion must be removed from the article on that basis alone. Is that correct? I don't think I can support that, unless it can be shown to be a Wikipedia-wide standard, and I'm pretty sure it's not. Are you also proposing to remove the assertion that accounts are tied to telephone numbers? And that Telegram comes with one default sticker pack? -- HLachman (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@HLachman:, the assertion must be removed if challenged. It is indeed a Wikipedia-wide standard that information must be true in all or most of the world - for example, you cannot say that July is warmer than January because it would not be true in, say, South Africa. As I mentioned before, the assertion in the cited source may be limited to only some countries, so I am asking to be careful that we are correct before repeating such a claim. (Also, please ping me while replying so I see it when I log-in. Thank you.) -Jose Mathew (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jose Mathew C: There is no core content policy saying "the assertion must be removed if challenged". If there were, then everything in Wikipedia would be instantly removed merely by someone challenging it all. -- HLachman (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@HLachman:, sorry for the confusion. What I meant is that the assertion needs to be removed if challenged, if it follows the conditions you mentioned - it is sourced, but we do not know whether the source covers multiple countries. Alternatively, it can be rephrased in a way that does not make such a generalisation. A third option would be to leave the statements as they are, but place a Template:Where or Template:Globalize tag. -Jose Mathew (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jose Mathew C: I'm still unable to support your proposal. It seems that your complaint is not that the article text doesn't accurately represent what's in the cited source (it does, and that satisfies WP:V: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution"). Rather, your complaint is that you have a personal disagreement with what's in the cited source. You stated above that your proposed edits to the article are based solely on your own personal opinions about how Telegram works, and that's not actionable (per WP:V: "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors"). -- HLachman (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@HLachman:, (1) As I pointed out earlier, the cited article does not claim to be true internationally. I thought I clarified this earlier, why are we going around in circles? Please see the Template:Where and Template:Globalize tags, which can be used in this case. (2) I am not asking for any additional content to be included; I am challenging existing content. The burden of proof is not on me, so you can avoid statements like "your complaint is that you have a personal disagreement with what's in the cited source". (3) Please note that I am not claiming that the cited source is wrong - my memory is not perfect, and even if it is correct, the policies could have changed since. My point is that this specific claim might be wrong, so someone with better technical knowledge should look into this, and until then, we should not make a generalised claim from specific information. -Jose Mathew (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jose Mathew C: From your last sentence, I understand your proposal, that the article "should not make" what you call "a generalised claim" (which happens to be properly sourced material) until someone "looks into it"... because it "might be wrong" (without specifying exactly how much "looking into" you require; while in the past two weeks, you've made no progress finding sources that support your position). Regarding "why are we going in circles", if you keep making the same proposal with no new information (preferably, it should be some actual published information about Telegram, not just your personal opinions about it), then I'll probably keep having the same response. Regarding "someone with better technical knowledge", I'm from that industry, and I don't know if my technical knowledge is sufficient for you, but it doesn't matter; per WP:V and WP:OR, what matters is what's in the sources, not what's in the editors' heads. Regarding "we should not make a generalised claim from specific information", note that the first sentence of Electron claims it has a negative charge, and the cited source makes an equally generalized assertion (it doesn't say whether that's true at the bottom of the ocean, inside a black hole, etc.). Removing or modifying that material solely on the basis of your "we should not..." principle would fall flat there, as it should, and that's why the principle, on its own, doesn't hold up. The fact is, contrary to your stated principle, it's quite widespread in Wikipedia that generalized assertions are made. WP:V says that's OK as long as the cited source has an equivalent generalized assertion (like in Electron, and here). Apparently, for you, the key difference between Electron and this article is that you have personal opinions about Telegram (not based on published information). Is that correct? As I said already, the material in question already satisfies WP:V. As long as you have nothing to present, other than personal opinions about Telegram, as your basis for editing that material, then I'll keep being unable to support your proposal (due to WP:V and WP:OR). -- HLachman (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@HLachman:, I am more concerned with common sense than the minutiae of rules. (I would cite the relevant wiki-rule, but it asks not to be used in a discussion.) It is more likely that a reader will be more interested in the behaviour of electrons in normal space, than inside a black hole. However, stating something that may not be true across the world as fact may be misleading for most readers. If you work in the IT industry, and have more information on this subject, I am willing to take your opinion as at least more likely to be correct than mine. Therefore, if you know (or have reasonable confidence) that the statement in the article is correct, I am ready to take your word for it. As for me not coming up with any sources, see my statement above about the burden of proof. -Jose Mathew (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jose Mathew C: Regarding "have reasonable confidence", yes, I have that, but I don't claim that as justification for my position. Regarding "take your opinion", my suggestion is to disregard my (or anyone's) personal opinions on the subject matter and go with what's in published, relevant, reliable sources. Regarding "stating something that may not be true", please refer to WP:CCPOL, "Wikipedia does not use "truth" as a criterion for inclusion" (and, although my personal opinions about "truth" should not carry weight, I'll just add that, to the best of my knowledge, having made some effort to investigate the matter on my own, the assertion presently in the article is actually true and is not region-specific). Regarding "minutiae of rules", I agree that sometimes some flexibility may be warranted, but in this case, I find your argument to be unpersuasive; I'm just not convinced that this is a case where an editor's personal opinions on the subject matter should be used to justify the suppression or alteration of properly sourced material. I think my position on this issue is clear enough, and I may or may not respond further. -- HLachman (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@HLachman:,

... to the best of my knowledge, having made some effort to investigate the matter on my own, the assertion presently in the article is actually true and is not region-specific.

Then it is fine. Thank you for cross-checking. -Jose Mathew (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

June 27 edits + move of the Censorship section

I've been doing clean-up after Baratiiman (talk · contribs)'s edits so I wanted to point out why I changed some of the things that I did: 1) the TOC limit helps keep the contents menu manageable and easy to navigate for users. There's little point in having all the subsections mentioned in there. 2) Voice messages are already mentioned in the introduction to the Cloud Messages subsection, so I removed the repeated mention. 3) Durov's criticism of Apple would fit better on his personal page and the matter with Belarus protests could, perhaps, go into the Censorship section.

Which brings me to my main point, should the Censorship section be removed into a separate article? WhatsApp, the closest rival to this app and its page similar in structure, kept the censorship/ban information in the main article, though it does have fewer cases of it. I'd like to hear from other editors on the matter as I am currently ambivalent. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

FOSS status in intro

To avoid constant back-and-forth, better to resolve this here. :@Ms7821: per Wikipedia's own source on FOSS, Telegram is FOSS because the apps, which are the subject of this article, are free and open-source. The fact that the servers are closed is already highlighted in the intro and stating that the whole app is proprietary because of that would not reflect the truth. The intro has been scrutinized time and time again, judging by the discussions on this very page, and I see little point in changing it based on a technicality, especially if it would make the article less clear. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@ASpacemanFalls: I've no idea what the ping template does but it didn't work for me, I've only just seen this. I don't massively care about Telegram, but I chose to correct the article because someone was citing it as evidence that Telegram is trustworthy due to its open source nature. A messaging system relies critically on its API/relay servers, and I find it extremely misleading to imply that Telegram as a whole is open source or free/libre as a result of its clients being open. You might as well argue SQL Server is FOSS.

You've cited "Wikipedia's own source on FOSS" twice now. Perhaps you could share where this defines partially open-source systems as FOSS? Ms7821 (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the implication is that Telegram as a whole is open-source but the article is, first and foremost, about Telegram the app, the software part of it. There are several mentions of the server being closed-source, which I fully agree are important but the application is fully open-source with verifiable builds. I'm citing Wikipedia's article on FOSS: "that is both free software and open-source software where anyone is freely licensed to use, copy, study, and change the software in any way, and the source code is openly shared so that people are encouraged to voluntarily improve the design of the software". It's clearly emphasizing that the software itself must be open-source and Telegram meets that standard. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Any reasonable definition of open source, not just Wikipedia's, would count Telegram's clients. In fact, the edit I made also follows Wikipedia's definition, but instead of conflating the (non-open-source) servers with the (open-source) clients, appropriately distinguishes the two.

I don't agree that the article is focused on the apps. The second sentence misleadingly begins "This service also provides", which a reader could reasonably believe is still qualified as open source. The paragraph then moves onto say "Various client apps are available", strongly suggesting that the focus in the preceding sentences is on the system as a whole.

It's clear you're not following a Wikipedia policy as you implied, so perhaps you could explain what's wrong with my edit. Contrary to your original comment, my edit does not state that the app is proprietary, only that the system is, and I believe it removes ambiguity and improves flow in the first paragraph. It also fixes a grammatical error which remains despite the extensive scrutiny the intro has already had. Ms7821 (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The two were already distinguished in the intro though. An edit was not necessary. Yes, the intro does have the strange wording of "service" and that should be changed if you so wish, but the article focuses on specifically the official Telegram clients, their features and the history of this software.

I don't much appreciate the implication that I'm doing this out of some sort of spite or pedantry, though I can be a bit sticky to these things sometimes. I'm simply following the idea that the article's intro should be clear and relevant. Telegram the software is open-source, its servers are proprietary. The article is not on the servers. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Where did I imply spite or pedantry? You're just insisting the article is exclusively about the clients, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Telegram (the software) includes its servers, and I can't spin up my own Telegram (the software) network because half of it is proprietary. Telegram (the software) is therefore not open-source in the way that Telegram Messenger (the iOS app) would be. The article refers to servers and datacentres, monetisation, governance, and cryptocurrency, all of which are broader scope than just the clients. The overly-long first paragraph even ends by distinguishing the server software from other components. Given the clear scope for confusion, I feel it's better stated up front.

I'm tempted to WP:BOLD my edit back, because "an edit was not necessary" is not a reason to revert. However, I'd also be comfortable with removing the first "free and open-source" from the article. Would you permit me to do that? It's still mentioned in the intro, just at the end of the paragraph, where it's already disambiguated. I'd alternatively be happy with "software" being changed to "app", but that's a bigger change. Ms7821 (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of cutting the argument short to save us time: how would you feel about rewriting the intro to the tune of "Telegram is a free cross-platform, cloud-based instant messaging (IM) software. It has open-source clients and proprietary servers." And then the rest of the intro, except remove the last sentence of the first paragraph, while bringing the sources over to the new sentence? Could actually also remove the "This service also provides end-to-end encrypted video calling, VoIP, file sharing and several other features." bit since it's paraphrased in the second paragraph. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

That's not cutting the argument short. I just proposed removing the first "free and open-source": would you revert that (Y/N)? Ms7821 (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I would not revert that if the relevant information explaining that the apps and encryption are open-source while the servers are proprietary remains further in the intro. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Use by fringe groups

Since when did "fringe" become a synonym for terrorist and/or criminal? This section needs renaming.

I mean, Wikipedia editors are a "fringe" group by any logical definition of the word "fringe". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.169.30 (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, wikipedia, in how they come to the conclusion of "truth", has zero to do with truth. If it where then you wouldn't need a "consensus" or to "democratically" agree something is true or not. 70.172.28.245 (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Repeat non-NPOV edits

Okay, @Zanuda petro:, please bring forward your arguments why "did not sign the NDA" and "did not receive the bug bounty money" is incorrect, considering that is what happened according to the very sources you post. You are citing a self-published post on a Reddit-like forum and have used multiple account to brigade this page, so clearly you care quite a lot about the matter, do explain? ASpacemanFalls (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Institute for Strategic Dialogue

This edit is a crude attempt to impugn an Institute for Strategic Dialogue report on the use of Telegram by far-right groups in Ireland, by adding, "This claim is dubious however due to the intentionally vague meaning of the term "far-right" and also considering the financial backers of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue being a large conflict of interest." The ref is not a reliable source. It is a self-published source by a man calling himself The Fat Emperor, whose area of interest apparently is "intensively researching the root causes of modern chronic disease." Each time this content is removed, even where there is an edit summary pointing out the unreliability of the source, Cardboardboxhd has reverted it with the edit summary "revert vandalism", which is totally out of order. This has happened six times. I have removed it again and, per WP:BRD, I am opening a discussion here on the talk page. I am asking Cardboardboxhd to engage with this discussion rather than continue to edit-war. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:4DF7:A8BA:3725:72EE (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Your claim that it is "not a reliable source" when it is merely a collection of publicly available stats in a single, easy to access location is misguided. Until a legitimate case is made for this sections' removal I will continue to reinstate it as it adds critically important context to the previous piece in the paragraph. Another option would be to remove the previous section too as it's only there to try to tarnish Telegram's reputation. It could easily be argued (and it is by some) that the ISD is not a reliable source itself so if you have issue with the part I am reinstating over and over, consider removing the previous part too. I considered removing it originally but opted to add additional context to it instead as I didn't want to be seen to "sanitize" the page so to speak. Cardboardboxhd (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Unsuitable categories

To avoid an edit war, laying out my arguments here (CC @Alguem ai2022):

According to the page - Telegram is registered as a company in the British Virgin Islands and as an LLC in Dubai. Calling it a "Russian brand" does not make sense. Moreover, Durov hold multiple citizenships, so by that logic we'd add categories, French, Emirati and St. Kitts and Nevis ones. We should not be basing the identity of the business on the identity of the person who established it or runs it. There are plenty of foreign nationals running companies in London, for example, but we don't claim that a London-based business is suddenly Indian just because the owner came from India and holds its citizenship. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 06:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Before reverting, I ask you to go to the Skype article, the creators of Skype are Estonian, but Microsoft bought the app and currently it is based in Luxembourg, but even so if you go in the categories, you will see that it is in the category (Estonian inventions ), as is Telegram, is an invention of a Russian-born man based in Dubai. Alguem ai2022 (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

But the categories I reverted were not about 'inventions'. (Edit: you've changed it to inventions only at this point, for clarity's sake.) This is not an applicable comparison. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Overtaken

Sorry guys, I love Telegram but the last paragraph in the introduction sounds like an advertisement .... 2003:C0:702:3500:5436:3BCC:8257:3F75 (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I basically rewrote entire intro now, I felt more of it sounded like an advertisement than just last part. With that however, I doubled one sentence from the History section on how it was funded and by whom. I might try to tackle it on later time if nobody else will. Frog4D (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Uncommented changes

I understand that you, @AB BLEL:, want to help with the intro, but I'm struggling to see the point of these additions. The intro was previously a mess and is now in a more or less presentable state. Adding bloat to it by mentioning a small feature like location sharing or restating that the app has encryption is not helpful. In fact, I find that having the plain "encrypted" bit in there inevitably leads to people arguing about what constitutes encryption and confusing readers. Having a direct but short explanation is likely better in the long run.

I have stated these things before in the edit summaries, so, please, explain to me your point of view. I cannot suss it out from your edits as you ignore the edit summary field, so I'm asking for your POV per WP:UNRESPONSIVE. With the added question of your CTO addition. I could not find a source that supports that claim, so why the sudden addition? I'd ask to refrain from further edits until we clear this up at least a little bit. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 08:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@AB BLEL: I've asked twice that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing by reverting without discussing.— ASpacemanFalls (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC).

"Notcoin" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Notcoin has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 11 § Notcoin until a consensus is reached. ltbdl (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)