Hi, and thanks for the welcome!

Thanks for the advice, I definitely agree. I am learning what the rules are, and to go by them. As you say, a lot of patience is required. I have been contributing to Wikipedia since it started, so I don't know where I got the "beginner" label from :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarsPensjo (talk • contribs) 14:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LarsPensjo: Sorry, I only looked at your english contributions and only saw some contributions this year. Now I see you contribute more in SV wikipedia. Anyhow, thanks for joining the ethereum discussion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worry, I still have a lot to learn. Now I saw the ping command, nice to know! The problem of using the Ethereum page also for Ethereum Classic, IMO, is that there are a lot of statements that are not true. Especially the Applications list. This list is important, as it shows that Ethereum is actually used for something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LarsPensjo (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the image Larry Schultz Beach.jpg from the Larry Schultz page. The copyright for this image is owned by Jim Erickson, and can not be freely released to the public without his and the estate of Larry Schultz's permission. Please delete this image and remove claims of ownership of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dturner (talk • contribs) 14:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Larryposeindex2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 13:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Papertigerpaperlogo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Randolph Hobson Guthrie III has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Likely fails WP:BLP1E, WP:N and WP:BIO

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Rachel Uchitel, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Uchitel (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TNXMan 17:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your bold article recreation, it might help to add more recent sources to show continuing coverage. The 'deletes' who watchlisted the article are already back in force.--Milowent (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Summation.net is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summation.net until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Kevin (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JT - I was wondering if you could dig up some reliable sources that speak to his notability? The article does have a lot of sources right now, but a lot of them are not reliable sources, and as far as I can tell none of them are the type of significant third party coverage that would establish his notability. Thanks, Kevin (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four halfwidth tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jtbobwaysf. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrightsboro Elementary School.
Message added 18:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello there. I have placed a response to a request for a third opinion on the disputed talk page here. Thanks Whenaxis (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. It has come to my attention that you may also be in a conflict of interest with the article as per my talk page here. [1] I may need to reverse my opinion on the matter if this is in fact true. Whenaxis about talk contribs 22:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pearl River mega-city has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This project was probably a misunderstanding and is not likely to be built. If it goes ahead, the article can be recreated.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.

Hey buddy, thought I should leave you a note about recent AfD stuff. I've reverted two of your comments added after AfDs had been closed. Once a discussion has been closed, adding comments (no matter how relevant you think they might be) is a bit of a "no-no". Best just to contribute to open AfDs. In those open AfDs, try to remain on-point and civil. There's not much point citing other AfD nominations or attacking the nominator. Just substantiate each subject's notability in turn and be satisfied when each of them is snow-closed as keep. There's probably only one in that "batch" that should actually be deleted - Norman Sjoman. The others were silly nominations and are all on their way to being kept. Stalwart111 23:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I was just coming here to say that your comments at AFD were way over the top, JTbobwaysf. You should strike them. Comment on the merits of the discussion, not the individual. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Stalwart and Dennis, I wasn't commenting on the user. I was calling attention to the fact that the user is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, which is both relevant and important to that particular AfD discussion as the purpose of that user's account is to nominate for AfD (nominations that Stalwart has called "silly"). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Please stop discussing other users at AfD - you've marked them up as possible SPA which is fine, but AfD simply isn't the right place for such discussion --- it gums up the works and delays final disposition. By all means take people to ANI if you think it appropriate; there's simply no value in repeatedly talking about it at AfD, as I see others have explained above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you so much for notifying for Kanika Batra article. I like your comment. Thanks for being transparent and reasonable. DAR (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tim Miller (yoga teacher), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what are you doing? I raised my concerns, and now you are edit warring to get dangerous medical claims into an article despite it violating WP:MEDRS. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how it violates WP:MEDRS. I also posted a question on your talk page asking that question. I have already posted the same question on your talk page, with you answer. Then you come here and start talking about edit warring. Nice Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Graham Gold, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sky Television and Southgate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mancoluto, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jtbobwaysf. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Mancoluto".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mancoluto}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sukiyabashi Jiro, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Weibo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jtbobwaysf. You have new messages at DAJF's talk page.
Message added 11:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

DAJF (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mancoluto, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mancoluto, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Rankersbo (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Larryschultzbeach.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 12:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heilongjiang Longmay Mining Holding Group Co., Ltd., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ref says "Third, there is an increase in nervous system disorders which also is not statistically significant. This increase is due to four cases of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease." [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i got that from Concussions_in_American_football where it says that it was statistically significant. it also says "the same year" on that page but when I look at the article, it is dated 1994, which is long before the NFL settlement (which is 2015/2016 timeframe if I am correct. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do not ever attribute a scientific publication to the institutions of the authors of the publication. People often try to do that to inflate the importance of the publication. It is not true; don't do it. Also pretty much every scientific society publishes multiple journals. People also try to inflate the importance of a publication by saying that the fancy-sounding society that publishes the journal, published the article. The society did not publish the paper; don't do that either.

For guidance, please see WP:MEDMOS, especially this part.

Also, please read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Definitions. The paper you cited was a primary source, not a secondary source. Jytdog (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might find the essay WP:Why MEDRS? helpful. A lot of folks who don't edit much about health get puzzled about MEDRS and don't understand why we strive to rely on secondary sources in articles about health and use primary sources very, very, very gingerly, if ever.

Bottom line there, is that all kinds of advocates come to Wikipedia and try drive content about health into articles based on primary sources or popular media, and there is a lot of garbage out there, including even in the biomedical literature. When I say "advocates" I mean everyone from people who believe that magnetic bracelets can cure cancer to representatives of medical devices companies. Applying MEDRS consistently allows us to keep garbage out of Wikipedia and keep us focused on Wikipedia's mission to provide the public with high quality articles that summarize "accepted knowledge". We follow scientific and medical consensus, and we are careful to include only "accepted knowledge" when it comes to health content.

If we lower the sourcing bar, we open the flood gates to all kinds of garbage content.

Among editors who are experienced in editing on health content, it raises all kinds of red flags about advocacy when somebody shows up at an article pushing and pushing to include content based on a primary source. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with advocating for inclusion of content, and citing primary sources in itself are not just cause for a revert per WP:MEDMOS, it is only if it relates to debunking or undue weighting. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blockstream, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages TLS and Blockchain. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jtbobwaysf. You have new messages at Talk:Ethereum.
Message added 20:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

N2e (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your comment here. I really appreciate people in WP who can acknowledge a mistake and move on. Way too many disputes are ego-driven instead of just being focused on the work. So thanks. Really.

For my part I took a fast (too fast) look at your contribs and thought that you worked some at New Page Patrol (NPP) but on closer look you just interacted with them a few times, about the article you created. I apologize for my mistake.

So I reviewed what is going on at the Ethereum article and on its Talk page, and it is really clear that advocates and conflicted editors have been swarming that article, and David Gerard has been pretty much the only experienced Wikipedian trying to maintain the content policies and guidelines. The advocacy that Gerard has been fighting off is blatant; the quality of almost all (almost all) the edits he has reverted has been really poor. Non-neutral content, hyping the currency and technology and downplaying negatives, often unsourced or badly sourced. (badly sourced = press releases, statements sourced only to the company's website or github).

It is really really hard to raise and maintain the quality of articles about IT topics where there are strong online communities. So I am really grateful for David's work.

You have been around a good long time, and I hope that you will work with David to raise and maintain the quality of that article and keep advocates (and people who own Ether and have financial conflicts of interest) from turning it into garbage. It doesn't mean that you always will agree, but I hope both of you can remain focused on Wikipedia's mission to provide the public with a high quality source of accepted knowledge about Ethereum, per WP:NOT. Thanks again. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jytdog: Thank you for the note. Yes, I don't have much experience with administrative, review, etc areas of wikipedia. Anyhow, happy to help and normally the other editors point out when I am wrong and I learn from that. Wikipeida is a funky place, but what is nice is it seems that the truth (mostly) filters through in the end. Than you again :-) Sincerely Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the ConsenSys page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Decentralized autonomous organization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IEET. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The DAO (organization), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fund. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Jtbobwaysf: I made a brief but explicit (and hopefully conciliatory) comment in favor of your position regarding Aeon. Nonetheless, as part of the momentum to close out the issues of the past few weeks, I notice that the particular citation is encompassed and corroborated in all its content by the other remaining extant references, so maybe it's OK to move on by standing down on it. I am not forcing your hand on this, just suggesting this informally. I am actually here to give a quick nod to you in regards to the asymmetry in courtesy that at least my reading finds in the various threads. By archiving the Talk page in the next day or so I hope that everyone is well served. Let's continue to enhance the article, which has appropriately withstood the notions of merger and AfD. Happy editing. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FeatherPluma (talk · contribs), I am good with the archive and think it is a good idea as well. Thank you for the note! :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Ethereum page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jtbobways. I saw you have opened an RSN item on that sources argument that got started on Ethereum. Probably a good idea following the clear no consensus on Talk Ethereum that the proposed source is a !RS. I will be sure to watch that develop, and weigh in for sure, in the next few days.

In the meantime, if you'll search upward on that page, you'll see there was another RSN done (one I didn't even know about for many days) by another editor who is fighting sources on simple things in another article in that space. I eventually weighed in, for context, but almost did not really need to as two of the regular editors who monitor the RSN page had repeatedly told the editor that the sort of source used was probably okay. Btw, the page in question in that RSN (Blockchain (database)) is a mess on the Talk page, and could really use a visit by other editors to get more consensus-driven discussion outcomes. Cheers. N2e (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @N2e:, I will start to look at the blockchain page. Good for me to add a new article to study. Some new homework :-) Thanks again Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. But recommend you take the Talk page a bit slowly. Maybe just think on one new topic per day or three for a while. There have only been two of us talking there for a while, and conflation across very separate issues has been, in my view, a bit of a problem. So I've taken to attempting to have Talk page sections that only deal with one issue at a time; with new sections for other issues. After all, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress, and there is no deadline. I'm just trying to get it on a vector to resolving and developing consensus on a few items that have been festering for months there. N2e (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e: Will do, thank you for the comment and reminder. I do get fired up and start commenting sometimes. I already downloaded the blockchain book and read the first page before I got sidetracked :-) Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a notice at ANI noticeboard. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ladislav Mecir: Thanks for the heads up. Are we supposed to comment, or is this something the administrators handle on their own? BTW, I think you forgot to use the ~~ to sign your entry on the noticeboard. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am aware of your recent creation of two noticeboard issues, and have even taken a position on one of them.

I'm here just to mention that I think it is a good idea to keep the two issues separate: they are separate issues, and there are two distinct WP noticeboards, one for dealing with each sort of issue.

Thus, I think it is a mistake to try to address both of them in one place, as for example, toward the very end of your statement of the issue on the FRINGE nomination/proposal, and also as you further articulated in your clarification here: diff

My rationale for this is simple: when you start it out and state it that way, there will necessarily be quite a bit of confused discussion on the board, which will only make it harder after 7 to 30 days, for some outside uninvolved editor to come in, review the discussion, and possibly indicate whether or what consensus might, or might not, have been achieved. Since, for example, the Fringe noticeboard can and will only work on issues of Fringe, best not to conflate it with the RS issue on the same board. Ditto for the RS board: make it purely and simply RS questions, and on very specific sources.

My recommendation to you: don't go edit like crazy in multiple places now to fix this. That dilutes your message, and allows your interlocutors to confuse things further. Limit it to maybe one or so relatively minor "fixes", if you decide to do anything at all. You have already made multiple comments in each place, and I have found that doesn't tend to help any later uninvolved editor who comes in to ascertain consensus. But do recognize that, for example, the Fringe discussion is much less clear than it might be because multiple editors are responding on the Fringe noticeboard about whether or not source xyz is a good source, which very much dilutes the real discussion on that particular page: is Ethereum properly a WP:FRINGE topic, or not.

Hope this is helpful. I mean it to be constructive feedback. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e: I totally agree with you that I have made a mess of that. I was confused in the beginning if I should make two noticeboards, or make one, and how to do the comments. Do you think I should edit out some of my comments to try to put it pack on track, or I just have to let it go and do it the right way next time. (I think the latter). Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is do only a bit of strikeout in your original post, like this, and write very few words explaining it; just a brief not that you did, your name and date. DO NOT DELETE YOUR PRIOR TEXT and remove it completely; that can easily make you subject to accusations of bad practice, and it removes important context for the ultimate non-involved editor who plays the reviewer role, who will need to understand why ppl might have said what they said.

So, keep your comment noting what you did brief. More talk or more subjects can (and typically does) confuse. Also, maybe pick one board to do first (e.g., Fringe) and let the other one age a day or two. In Wikipedia, we can generally relax and take a week or more to decide important issues. Then, if (and as...) that goes well, consider clearing up the other one's extraneous topic text a day or so later. That's my two cents. N2e (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e: Thank you for the feedback. I have struck some of my notes on Fringe in attempt to focus on the subject at hand and reduce the conflation you mentioned. Thank you very much for the helpful suggestions. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Glad to help. Just trying to make this encyclopedia better, and the experience better for good editors, so they'll stay and work on the project. Appreciate your work! Happy to mentor you further in the future should you want assistance or advice. N2e (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, two months on, we can see an illustration of what I was concerned about. Neither the Fringe board discussion, nor the RsN board discussion, reached any clear view and achieved a closed discussion. That has not stopped one particular active editor from, ad nauseum, continually referring to one or two editor's comments on the Fringe board as if he somehow won a policy victory. So, yeah, conflation and complexity on the topic under discussion is generally the enemy of forward progress. N2e (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed @N2e: I did really make a mess of the issue that didn't do much to solve the main issue of the editor in question (and his sometimes tag team partner) from deleting content that doesn't match his world view (in this case when the content originates from coindesk). Sometimes I feel a bit hopeless as all kinds of content gets deleted, even stuff from the wsj, nyt, etc. But that is certainly not as flagrant as the coindesk deletions. Thank you for the help on this! :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there again Jtbobways. Really happy to see you staying involved in the contentious talk pages that got started a few months ago and which we previously chatted about, above.

On the most recent CoinDesk as a source debate on the blockchain article, I think we finally have that tee'd up as a single issue discussion. Best if editors make their point, despite bloviation and repetition by some edtiors, without ourselves repeating too much and too frequently in the discussion. Will make it easier for an outside/uninvolved reviewer to come in and close the discussion after a time, which I suspect will be exactly where this one will end up (uninvolved closer will be essential in this case, as it appears no amount of ordinary discussion and overwhelming no. of editors against his position will get him to concede).

In other words, on the CoinDesk topic, my recommendation is just ensure your position is clear and concise and based on wiki-policy. Let the closer help out in, oh, about 4 weeks time. N2e (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jtbobwaysf. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.  Just learned this.  I have been too busy in my outside-Wikipedia life to have noticed.  User_talk:Earl_King#Earl_King_has_been_blocked.  Life is good!  N2e (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @N2e:, yes it has been more pleasant recently on the various articles that Earl was patrolling. First it appears Earl King Jr. something happened, he says he lost his login, but who knows. Then a few weeks later his second Earl King account (less the jr) was banned. I am not sure what he did, but it is nice to be without him for a while. Happy Holidays :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jtbobwaysf - I welcome you to express your position on the dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the lead edit on Ethereum. - Aliensyntax (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion going on re improving the bitcoin article, and how the blockchain ought to be referred to with respect to bitcoin, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bitcoin#Bitcoin_is_not_the_blockchain.3B_it_is_a_blockchain

As a previous commenter on that Talk page, would invite you to consider weighing in on this conversation so that we might see if a consensus is possible. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I warned you that you introduced quite a few copyright violations to the article and informed you that all violations have to be removed first. Now I see that you are readding some content to the article before all your additions have been revisited. So, again, please do recheck all your additions and remove all copyright violation before making any additions to the text. That has to be made to allow an admin to remove the copyright violations not just from the article, but also from its history. If you do not do that and start adding new material, you risk that all your additions to the article will be deleted. Thanks in advance. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please just copy the text here you say is violating, maybe i forgot to edit the text from the source when moving it over the article. I moved a lot of content into the article today, and any copyright violation wasn't deliberate Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Paper Tiger Inc. has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

• Actually WP:CSD#A7. SwisterTwister talk 15:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help, my edits are being reverted as "vandalism" by the founder and one of lead developers of IOTA on the Iota article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOTA_(Distributed_Ledger_Technology) Here is the Coordinator explained (and another primary source) http://www.tangleblog.com/2017/01/25/the-tech-behind-iota-explained/ See "The coordinator is deciding, where the tangle needs to grow and where to coordinate the next steps. The coordinator also marks transactions which are already confirmed. That’s the reason IOTA is not distributed yet per definition, but decentralized." And more, the Coordinator is explained here, "https://blog.iota.org/the-transparency-compendium-26aa5bb8e260" I dont think my edits mentioning and explaining how things arein 2017 July, is vandalism. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.237.194 (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@178.78.237.194: i suggest you create a wikipedia account, soon this page will be blocked to IP address users...Then just take a deep breath and join the debate on the page. All of these crypto articles seem to be very passionate... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making edits like this. We are not a spamfarm. Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What link is the spam specifically? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bitcoin Magazine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Magazine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  14:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jtbobwaysf. You have new messages at Talk:Proof-of-space.
Message added 12:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will need consensus for that. We do not tag stuff within an FA just because a single person does not agree with it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:MEDDEF.

Your recent editing history at Water fluoridation shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Nah, thats not what is going on. Feel free to comment on the talk page in question. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did already. You are editing aggressively about something you don't understand. Really RTFM -- MEDDEF says that statements by major medical bodies are secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, you swear at me on my talk page. Haha, crazy Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha incompetent edit warring on a FA is not acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's FA mean? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to engage in an edit war with you Jtbobwaysf, but you have made a mistake in putting SegWit2x in the "proposed solution" category. The second half of SegWit2x was agreed-upon by the New York Agreement and is going to be implemented by a hard fork in November. Please correct your mistake. --Ben Best:Talk 11:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war? Just change the content the content if you want to and have RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your frivilous nomination failed. Just your attempt at wikibullying. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host, this is a residence. [[User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] ([[User talk:Jtbobwaysf#top|talk]])}} Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To help you we need to know your IP address. If you wish to keep it confidential you can use WP:UTRS. Just Chilling (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since (a) you have not provide3d the IP address and (b) you have continued to edit after requesting an unblock, suggesting the unblock may no longer be needed, I am disabling the request to prevent wasting time of more administrators who come here to review it. Reinstate it with information about the IP address if necessary. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please disable the request. I must have a dynamic IP at home and I am now able to edit again for the last 24 hours and have not been able to re-create the issue. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson:, i am having the issue again and today I did write down the IP address. Apologize last time I didn't as I thought my IP would have been recored in my edits. The IP with the issue is xxxxxxxx Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard that message, I had my vpn on and forgot. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jtbobwaysf. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained to you why your edits were reverted. I've linked you to WP:BRD, which explains how we handle edit disputes. Instead of answer on the talk page, you template me, someone who has been here 10 years and has 60,000 edits under his belt. Again, read WP:BRD. You were bold and made changes, I reverted them, now the burden is on your to explain your changes on the talk page. The one edit warring is you. You need to read up on policy before you throw templates around. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you for edit warring 2RR (which you promptly reverted), and then you come here and post this. This has to be one of my favorite talk page posts to date, I particulaily loved the "someone who has been here 10 years and has 60,000 edits under his belt" part, excellent ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Bitcoin has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Bitcoin was changed by Jtbobwaysf (u) (t) ANN scored at 1 on 2017-12-17T06:43:25+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bitcoin Ponzi scheme and pyramid scheme concerns is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Ponzi scheme and pyramid scheme concerns until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The chat with Sriram Jetty shows that he is not even involved, but the website shows him as lead developer. Also, another member Donna Khyuz is a model who has been paid for her name. Also on bitcointalk, they aren't giving any concrete answers.

please note that the revival of Segwit2x has already bought down the Bitcoion and Bitcoin Cash market. Please make the article protected until they clarify.

A user named Timumba is on their team and keep changing the details.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.46.200.207 (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i have blanked the section. Looks dubious. I have also asked for page protection, and we will see if any WP:RS come up about this supposed re-launch of 2x, until now WP:NOTNP applies. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you mentioned a discussion at the RS noticeboard, in your revert here. Can you point me to it, i cannot find it, thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm, found it here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#digiconomist prokaryotes (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Bitcoin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: The same editors who are WP:TE on the bitcoin page are also edit warring on the Ethereum page, and you just yesterday locked the Ethereum article for it. I havent made one edit over at Ethereum, jytdog has been handling that situation. I also did Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#digiconomist about this issue. Your claim that I am edit warring lacks merit, I have been following the protocol. BTW, if you think my position relating to the sources is wrong, just let me know, I would be happy to know. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:EW: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." Working towards consensus is good, but your reverts are still edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source you re-added on Ayahuasca only promoted the film they want to make, and is peppered with links to the fundraiser for the film project. It didn't source the content you re-inserted about the arrest. Given all of that, it is basically commercial spam disguised as news. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CorbieVreccan: Sorry, my bad. I re-added in a newly created popular media section. What do you think about it there? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I really don't think we should include it at all because it's a fundraising effort. The film isn't finished, so we can't say if it's notable. It's too close to being a commercial link. I can't support re-adding it. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, IPC sections become instantly bombarded with everyone's drug trip stories. No, we don't need that in the article. Let's stop it before it starts. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CorbieVreccan: ok, good point. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

I know I am a new editor here. Thank you for introducing the various information articles about sources and reverting. I have read your information on the talk page, but I can't agree in most cases. First of all in my opinion a discussion about the used sources is better than deleting almost the whole article. It was a lot of work. Please see my further versions to see how much I tried to contribute to the article.

Using the webpage bitcoingold.org and the Roadmaps published by Bitcoin Gold

According to WP:IRS for "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" when:

• The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. - fulfilled
• It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). - fulfilled
• It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. - fulfilled
• There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity - fulfilled
• The article is not based primarily on such sources - fulfilled

Anyway if the source is too questionable there are many other sources available for argumenting the written text.

Other import information deleted by you

Before I started to edit the article I collected information about typical Cryptocurrency articles. I do not know why you deleted it after a long period (financial strategy). A lot of people are interested in this one because it is controversal. Regarding the Ecosystem Chapter: It is very easy to find other sources for approving the information.

Neutrality

As I wrote in the discussion page the whole article is about criticisms. Therefore the neutrality of the article is not given. All the mentioned concerns about the article is valid for the criticism part as well. I used the same publisher as well (for example bitcoin.com). In the end there is only one way. Just a short Introduction and the infobox (like Zcash) or a full article including much more information than now.

Mstroehle (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mstroehle: welcome to wikipedia. It is always a challenge in the beginning to come to terms with the reliable sources requirements. I can tell you that essentially you need to find sources from large newspapers, or even the major industry rags such as coindesk or cointelegraph. If it isn't from those sources the content will get challenge and removed, again and again. In some cases WP:PRIMARY is ok, like if we link to satoshi's whitepaper, or microsoft says something on their corporate website, but in those cases generally the content must be uncontroversial. In general Medium posts wont be allowed, nor will blogs, etc which will all be considered WP:UGC. Please feel free to ask me questions as you go along. Over time you will get it, please stick with it! :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jtbobwaysf:. Therefore please go into my arguments for "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". Which one is not fulfilled for bitcoingold.org? Do you agree on my doubts regarding the neutrality of the article? You rejected a part because of using bitcoin.com as source. Therefore the Criticism part is as well WP:IRS? So it has to be removed as well. Mstroehle (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mstroehle: the nuance is essentially primary sources can be used for very very uncotroversial content that is located in a section or on a page that has other WP:IRS. But creating new sections that are only primary sources in most cases will get deleted. It also depends on the subject. For example if we are talking about something historical, say Leland Stanford then primary sources are more likely to be allowed, if we are looking for something like his birthdate, etc. The reason I give Stanford as an example as he is a dead person who died hundreds of years ago, and likely not controverisal. But for a topic that is investment or might be used for promotion, then the editors will be more strict about sources. Is this making sense? You are right, it is all nuanced, and some editors are more strict than others, but in general creating sections on bitcoin, ethereum, etc that are only anchored by primary sources, blogs, etc the content will generally be quickly deleted by someone as there is a concern for abuse, promotion, etc. As you start to edit you will note all the promotional edits that occur every day in topics where there is a chance for some users (I am not saying you) to make money from the edits. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jtbobwaysf:. Thanks for the comprehensive introduction. Usually I am working and studying in exact and hard fields but I think I got it. It seems to be a lot of politics in wikipedia. I can not handle fuzzy statements. I have only one more request. Please do not sidestep my questions. Can you directly mark the not fulfilled requirements?

• The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
• It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).
• It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
• There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity
• The article is not based primarily on such sources about

Why did you delete all criticism but not the Fee-topic? Are you going to revert my changes when I am shortening the topic in a way that the article appears like a article about Bitcoin Gold and not about the developer StarbucksBG?

I am going to check the sources which are still used in the article for fulfilling the requirements. I am also going to introduce my planned chapters in the talk page before changing the article. If there are no doubts (lets say for three days) I change the article. I dont want to waste my time writing dozens of sentences which are going to be deleted. Mstroehle (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin_Gold&diff=822264983&oldid=821773419) as well: It is about the financial strategy. Less information and less structure. Is this making sense? Mstroehle (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mstroehle: yes it is quite political. Essentially consensus forms slowly and steadily over many many discussions like we are having. It takes months sometimes. First I agree with you to discuss content on the talk page of the bitcoin gold article so more people can give opinions, as not too many people watch my personal talk page. Next, I deleted the crticism information as it is more controversial and thus needs better sources. Things like facts and figures which are not controversial have a lower quality of sources standard. But everyone has different opinions of all this stuff, so you just have to stick with it over many months and you will get the hang of it! I will check the edit you made and comment over on the talk page of the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason unknown to me you decided to undo most of my edits from yesterday, clearly breaking the three-revert rule (3RR) citing "WP:SPA adding trash" in a few of your comments. I'm a new user with just a few edits under my belt now, so how can I be a single purpose user if I only made a few edits? This is impossible to determine and clearly you are trying to discourage me from editing which again you are breaking more rules here, not sure why, maybe you don't like my edits. Please stop. I just started and would rather not have someone undoing all the work I did just for a few edits. I backed all my edits with evidence and references and tried my best to follow all the rules. I don't know what your problem is but I'm asking nicely to please stop. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.S.Wiki (talk • contribs) 14:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your sourced article, from The Next Web, MIX, has a known public feud with the IOTA community. https://twitter.com/Mixtatiq/status/966312593077030912 . It contradicts WP:RS guidelines.Xa7v9ier (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xa7v9ier: i hvae no knowledge of what you are talking about, but if you have an issue with a source my talk page is not the right venue. Take it up on the WP:RSN. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Bitcoin Cash, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. The problem with your edits is that the addition of the material has been discussed at the talk page, and you did not find the necessary consensus to put the claims to the article. Therefore, your addition is not constructive. That is why it has been deleted. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bitcoin Cash. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should stop removing content you don't like from articles. Only remove content when you have a valid reason for its removal. If you are disputing a fact then please start a discussion. You seem unable or unwilling to work constructively. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate your constant mischaracterisation of my edits as promotional when I am just describing and explaining what something is. Why do you feel so compelled? You seen threatened to me. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bitcoin Cash. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You have been warned at Talk:Bitcoin Cash to not delete the citations confirming the first sentence of the article lead section, but you continue in doing without actual consensus. Note that e.g. The Independent citation confirms that the Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency as well as the claim that it is a payment system. You mentioned at the Talk:Bitcoin Cash page that you wanted to delete the whole article. It is legitimate to propose the deletion, but it is not neutral to delete large parts of the article with such a goal when the consensus with the proposed deletion was not achieved. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jtbobwaysf

Good point; allow me to add the acknowledgment from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office and the United States Intellectual Property Office within the text itself. While I am the named person, you are correct, as an individual, I am 'not' a reliable source. The government intellectual property offices, on the other hand, ARE a reliable source. Trusting this is to your acceptance.

Best,

Anoop Bungay (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Anoop Bungay: the issue is that the IPO doesnt really prove your claim. I suggest that you create a section on the talk page (the article's talk page, not mine) and 1. identify yourself as a person with a conflict of interest and 2. suggest the following edits. But I think you will need WP:RS to show you created this first. If we just look at the IPO filing, the editor must do his/her own WP:OR to deduce you are the creator. Make sense? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again @Jtbobwaysf, thank you for your quick response.

As an FYI, please see below; you will notices that in USA and Canada, after a IPO certificate is aged 5 years, the claim is incontestable. In our case, when the seminal peer-to-peer lending system built on blockchain technology developed between 2001 and 2005 was brought online; I filed for the trademark in Canada. When you click the citation, you will see that it is aged over five years. Pursuant to international treaties, it is aged in Canada and is deemed incontestable, so too, is it deemed as such elsewhere. Below is the original passage that I wrote. My thinking is that I would be placing this original passage somewhere in the article after the TOC.

What say? A

Oh, sorry to be bore, but this reminds me; when you say "just look at the IPO filing"; please note, these are not "proof of filings" - they are "proof of registration". My preference is to republish the material with your blessing. I will, however, take your advise and also publish the talk page and get other feedback. Best,

Anoop Bungay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoop Bungay (talk • contribs) 06:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) ^[1], the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)^[2] the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO)^[3] and their international peer intellectual property organizations (in 191 member states^[4]) incontestably [the word "incontestable" is legislatively defined, pursuant to Canada's (a WIPO Member State^[5]) Federal Trade-marks Act R.S.C., 1985, c. T-13)^[6]; equivalent United States Trademark Law^[7] and international jurisdiction equivalents] recognize (pursuant to international intellectual property treaties and conventions^[8]) that the world's first commercially deployed application of blockchain 'principles in commerce' was not 'first used' in the form of a "peer-to-peer (P2P), private, or secret" (these are equivalent terms: see Peer-to-peer lending) electronic (binary digit) financial instrument in the form of currency (commonly referred to as "cryptocurrency"); known by its genericized brand name: "bitcoin"^[9] and actually or ostensibly, created by unknown person or persons named "Satoshi Nakamoto"; pursuant to a white paper entitled "Bitcoin: a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System^[10]" first published in the Metzger, Dowdeswell & Co. LLC^[11] “Cryptography Mailing List” on Friday, October 31 at 14:10:00 EDT in 2008^[12] and a subsequent computer program named: “Bitcoin v0.1" published for release on Thursday January 8 at 14:27:40 EST in 2009^[13]; instead, international public trademark records (proof-of-work) indicate that the world's first commercially deployed application of blockchain was 'first used' in the form of a "peer-to-peer (P2P), private, or secret" electronic (binary digit) financial instrument in the form of debt (commonly referred to as "cryptodebt"); known by its internationally registered trademark brand names: "BITMORTGAGE®"^{[14] [15] [16]} (for government regulated cryptodebt instruments, including those secured by real property) and "NONMORTGAGE®"^{[17] [18]} (for non-government regulated cryptodebt instruments, including those not secured by real property), created by Mr. Anoop Bungay; pursuant to a proprietary dissertation entitled: “Binary Digit Debt: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Debt System” [research commenced pursuant to regulatory obligations to the Real Estate Council of Alberta (RECA^[19]) at least as early as August 14, 2001^[20]] and its corresponding public business implementation: PrivateLender.Org: Canada's Private Lending Network®^[21] at least as early as April 9, 2005^[22].

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the 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 he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. 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.

TonyBallioni (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]