A barnstar for you![edit]

	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)

Uma medalha para você![edit]

	A Medalha Surreal
	Thanks for Cryptocurrency bubble article. FML talk - me at pt 06:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thank you Rebecca jones (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Rebecca jones Sincerely, Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

COIN[edit]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. - David Gerard (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for being a civil human being![edit]

		The Civility Barnstar
		I have encountered a lot of hostility over the past couple weeks, both from editors and administrators, directed both at me and at others. Your willingness to engage with me, talk through my concerns, and assume WP:GOODFAITH rather than being hostile and uncivil has really helped take the edge off of the whole situation. I hope you continue to be an upstanding person and you stay with Wikipedia for a long time! Micah Zoltu (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

MicahZoltu thanks! Please keep editing, you will get into the flow of the nuance over time. Sometimes you cant influece some articles much, others you can. All depends on the dynamics of each article. Julian Assange and other "AP2" (American politics) articles are examples, there are a lot of very political editors that will stonewall anything. As for crypto articles, it is quite easy to make changes as long as you have good sources. Some articles had more content in the past but got stripped back when people started to remove the non high-quality sources, and I would say in general the shape of the crypto articles have improved. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Indiscriminate revert[edit]

How is this an acceptable edit[1]? You provide zero substantive reason for reverting this content, and you literally state that you are only reverting it because I made the edit. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The content you decided to restore included a dead link and a tweet. It's perfectly fine that you have contempt for me, but it's a problem when you're making the encyclopedia worse just because you can't put aside your petty grievances. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks to me you are continuing to engage on the same content that resulted in a long noticeboard thread. If a notable person says something on twitter about this subject, primary is ok as far as i understand. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

(1) The content I removed was not under discussion and not controversial in the slightest. Your very own explanation that I was personally not allowed to make edits says it all even though you're now trying to come up with some BS excuse to rationalize your attempt to actively ruin the encyclopedia just to spite me. (2) "Tweets by famous people" do not equate reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

You created a talk page discussion on the assange article about my revert. We can discuss there. No need for two discussions. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SegWit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Craig Wright (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Philbin article[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but I'm wondering what you meant to do with this edit - I'm not sure why that would have to be removed, and it also makes the sentence incomplete. You're a more experienced editor than me, so I thought I would ask. Lcodyh803 (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Lcodyh803: Thanks, I fixed it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Lcodyh803: I was taking a look at the article again today and it looks like it is a short article, sometimes called a stub. I guess I felt that there was nothing much wrong with the WP:LEDE as it summarized the article fine. Sometimes a WP:STUB article is hard to summarize, and less info in the lede is better than more. That was my logic behind the edit. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Easiest AFD[edit]

The easiest way to nominate an article for AFD is to use WP:Twinkle. Enable it in your preferences and it adds a TW dropdown menu at the top. On an article, click TW > XFD, and it opens a box you fill in with the information for the AFD. The tool then does everything else for you. Practically a one-click solution. Schazjmd (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: that was not the answer i thought i was looking for but it was the answer i was really looking for. thank you!!! :-) I just enabled it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Enjoy! It's made things much easier for me. I'm sure someone else will be able to help fix the muddled AFD you mentioned on the board, I don't know how to. Schazjmd (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Meyer Corporation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dupont (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Deceptive edit summaries[edit]

Not cool. That edit summary is completely deceptive. "Edit for weight" is not even slightly appropriate when restoring a paragraphy that is under active discussion on Talk with no consensus in sight. Guy (help!) 19:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the edit summary is "deceptive," but the edit itself was contrary to the restrictions that you placed on the article. The edit has been reverted.

Guy, calls to stop discussion on the Assange talk page are inappropriate and contrary to the spirit of article improvement and the project overall. There are articles being written on Assange every day in the international press and as editors we should be expected to bring some portion of those either into the article or to the talk page for consideration of inclusion. I hope you will support that. Nobody can be forced to agree with inclusion of text they oppose, but editors should not be asked to stop proposing content. -Darouet (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, I'm not calling to stop discussion. I am saying that "edit for weight" is an entirely inappropriate edit summary for re-inserting disputed content. Guy (help!) 20:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: My apologies, my second paragraph here is confusing because of the context in which I wrote it. You have done nothing to call for an end to discussion. In my second paragraph I was writing to you about a different subject than the edit summary: a number of statements by other editors suggesting that the talk page discussion should be shut down.

Regarding the edit summary (the topic of my first paragraph above), I believe Jtbobwaysf's summary makes sense if you recognize that they were unaware of the nature of the DS on the page. That DS taken into account, I agree with you that the edit and edit summary would both be considered inappropriate. -Darouet (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I was unaware that it was prohibited to edit this content under discussion. In general I have found an un-involved editor (I am largely un-involved on this article, except for a comment or edit every couple months) can suggest an alternative formulation that solves a discussion. Normally in all the other articles I edit, cited content with RS is good to add. It is only in this AP2 venue where it seems that people overuse (misuse) this WP:ONUS to justify the exclusion of well cited content, and I am frankly baffled by it. Then when an RfC occurs, there are all these POV editors that show up, who appear not to be voting based upon the RfC but instead based upon POV. It would be helpful if there was a tool that would overweight editors 'cited by bot' editors votes, but I digress. In general this Assange article has serious problems such as the focus on wikileaks (rather than Assange) as well as general exclusion of the recent comments and news relating to his extradition. Pretty poor state of affairs that clearly results from a CIRCUS running on the article. Maybe this circus runs runs in all the AP2 articles as well, I just haven't noticed (or cared to look). Maybe wikipedia is just a reflection of the current global political situation, and then that is how it is ;-) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I was proposing a different wording with less weight. I thought this counting of 130 German people is a weight issue (trying to make it sound big and important) and maybe it would resolve the issue. I give a try at editing this Assange article every couple of months and I guess I dont have a full handle on the protocol in this AP2 realm. First, I wont edit content that is under discussion again on this article. Is this restriction the same on all AP2 articles? Second, are we allowed to create an RfC for content under discussion? Or does the fact that it is under discussion bar any editing and RfC's as well? Seems pretty extreme that any content that is objected to by someone else (and it seems in this politics genre such that there will always be an objection) that everything gets mired in these discussions. Over the past few months I just sometimes chime in on the talk page of this article as it seems pretty crazy, supporting inclusion of content. Also curious why your comment on my talk page was higher up than the comment below from Darouet, who seems to have made the comment earlier. Or you were you comment at the same time? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Very difficult to edit this article now, I guess that is the reality in AP2 so hopefully I dont become more interested in the AP2 articles (I dont often edit them). I have to add content, and then self revert, and then start a discussion as I am unclear if the content has been added before (was a small mention in the talk page, but no section on it). Bummer wikipedia has come to this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There are DS sanctions on the Assange article[edit]

Hi @Jtbobwaysf: there are discretionary sanctions on the Assange article, meaning that this edit [2] that you just made is not permitted, since this material has already been "contested" in some form. I made the same mistake earlier. You could be blocked for an edit like this. I'd recommend you self-revert.

In principle these sanctions mean that further additions to the Assange article could be indefinitely stonewalled. However, since coverage of Assange has been accelerating in reliable sources as the extradition trial approaches, there's lots to discuss on the talk page. In theory consensus could emerge to include some of this reporting in some form. Sincerely, -Darouet (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Darouet: Ah, thanks. I wasn't aware there were sanctions that prevented adding content in discussion. Looks like someone already reverted it. So then the only solution is to do an RfC? What about this Corbyn content from today, has someone already added that as well, and so that is not ok to add too? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Nobody has even commented on the issue yet, as far as I can tell, besides myself. -Darouet (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

ANI Notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See Here Regice2020 (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Another DS sanctions violation on the Assange article[edit]

You were warned above, and yet you've violated the DS sanctions again with this deletion. That content was "contested". Read the warning at the top of the talk page. I suggest you immediately self-revert before I call on an admin for a block. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement block[edit]

The article Julian Assange is under a 1RR restriction, as stated on the talkpage. People have warned you that you violated the restriction and advised you to self-revert, both immediately above and on article talk. You have shown that you're aware of these warnings,[3] and yet you have not self-reverted. You have been blocked for 36 hours. This is an Arbitration enforcement block. Bishonen | tålk 17:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC).

OK, thank you. I didn't self revert as it appeared someone else had already reverted it by the time I noticed. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the block. I misread the article history and also a warning on your page, and thought you had violated 1RR at Julian Assange. That was what I blocked for; I've never blocked anybody for violating the "consensus required" restriction, since I hate that restriction — I think it's bad and counterproductive. I've made a note of apology in your block log. Bishonen | tålk 14:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC).

Thank you for clarification. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Uncivil accusations[edit]

Your accusations of POV pushing at Talk:Julian Assange are uncalled for and related to AGF. Are you doing that? Please rethink how you speak to other editors. Would you make the same accusation if we tried to add this Trump-favorable content from the Mueller Report to articles at Wikipedia?

"In particular, the investigation examined whether these contacts involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination."

Would you object to our use of the Mueller Report for adding that content? Would you see that as POV pushing? (BTW, we have long used that content from the Report in several articles, and those editors who don't like Trump did not object.) Stop and think about who is POV pushing. Objections to the inclusion of properly-sourced content can be seen as POV pushing, so be more careful. Good editors do not try to exclude properly-sourced content. We seek to include it. Read Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Now you are POV pushing on my talk page. Take your AP2 WP:BATTLE somewhere else. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

In what way am I POV pushing? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

SANCTIONGAMING and POV Pushing[edit]

Don't keep pushing the Ethereum is the real Ethereum, Ethereum Classic is a fork of Ethereum, and other WP:FRINGE concepts here. These edits are WP:TE and violate the terms of GSCRypto. Be advised. Thanks!

To third party admins, please review Jtbobwaysf (talk) editing history and observe how the user applies WP:SANCTIONGAMING to push their own personal edits. This forced me to deeply read into Wikipedia WP:GAMETYPE policy. If I need to submit a formal document to prevent harassment from Jtbobwaysf (talk), I'd be very happy to do so. After searching the username, it appears I'm not alone in this user's disruptive editing harassment tactics WP:DE. Thanks!

Please stop personally attacking me with your WP:GASLIGHT tactics and provide WP:RS for your edits as requested in the Talk discussion for the Ethereum article. It is very clear to me you are acting in bad faith and not adhering to WP:NPOV because in 3 days you have yet to provide ONE WP:RS related to your edits, and have now instead opened this section on my page in an effort to push you WP:SANCTIONGAMING tactics through. Not going to happen Jtbobwaysf. Justify your stance with cited facts or move on. — GitR0n1n (talk 08:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. GitR0n1n (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Blockstream page edits[edit]

Thanks for the welcome and GS. I'm curious why you removed my GitHub citation when other similarly cited GitHub content still exists on the page.

Voellzj1 (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll respond over at Talk:Blockstream#Company so others can see our discussion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020[edit]

Dont do this [4] in the future until you get your facts straight. Shellwood (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Cite errors[edit]

Please be so kind as to fix all the cite errors you introduced back into the article when you reverted my edit. → References #11, #12, #13, #14, #15. As you are aware, all content must be sourced and must be verifiable. See the help page for further information. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Isaidnoway:, did the bot fix it with this [5] edit? Do i still need to fix it? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed — Isaidnoway (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

A publication worth sampling[edit]

Hi, Jtbobwaysf. You wrote: "I value his experience and expertise on the subject matter" referring to the author of this book. I must ask: Did you read at least one page of the book? (sample pages are available at the link) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC) @Ladislav Mecir: no i havent read even one page, I was referring to his experience as an editor. But I will take a look. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Advice for zcash wiki page?[edit]

Hi JTBobwaysf! thank you for your message. I am new to wiki-editing. I want to update the zcash page to reflect current information but I want to follow the wiki guidelines by including citations or references for the article. How do you recommend I do this if coindesk/ zcash (primary source) are not acceptable? I'm happy to follow your suggestions and welcome your advice. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elena ECC (talk • contribs) 19:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

3RR note[edit]

Jtbobwaysf I've responded to you on the Rick Bright talk page. I'll document the problems Springee has created, but I've got to squeeze out the time from somewhere to do so. I wish this were a "good faith" editing problem, but it's clearly not. I'll spend hours researching and sourcing an article and he spends seconds erasing all my laborious work. He's been stalking me for months and I'm not the first editor to whom he's done this and can't imagine I'll be the last. Thanks so much for your interest. Activist (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I appreciate your "inclusionist" note. Activist (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

JtbobwaysfP.P.S. I've got to deal with Springee on a Noticeboard as he's just chosen another of my extensive contributions to eviscerate, but I note that of his last 1,000 edits, 182 of them have been to Noticeboards. I wonder if any other editor has been so involved in contention as he has? Activist (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Activist: gosh, sounds crazy. I havent come across this editor in the past, but I dont frequent AP2 articles too much, due to this type of thing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adam Back, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Craig Wright (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adam Back, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hal Finney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I just want to be able to keep the Binance article more substantial, how can we make this work?[edit]

Hey there, so I understand that there are policies in place for this one, I might just need to discuss with you more about how we can make that possible while remaining compliant with the standards here. Like, If I don't remove the "controversial" topics while adding more info about the exchange, would that make the edits more acceptable? Or what else can I do about it? Thanks in advance. MikoloIlas (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)