User talk:CyborgX

Welcome

Hello CyborgX and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to CEX.IO Bitcoin Exchange, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Eagleash (talk) 10:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue to add unconstructive or unsourced content to the page. If your edits are removed as unconstructive, do not just restore them. This is known as edit warring and can lead to the loss of editing privileges irrespective of the merits of the edits. Engage with the other editor involved and reach an agreement. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 10:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page CEX.IO Bitcoin Exchange has been reverted.
Your edit here to CEX.IO Bitcoin Exchange was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/oleksandr.lutskevych) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at CEX.IO Bitcoin Exchange, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. NZFC^(talk) 01:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CEX.IO Bitcoin Exchange Comment

Hi CyborgX, while I understand your frustration with this company. You edits are considered vandalism and will always be reverted either by myself or other users if they continue like they have. If as you say this company has been ripping people off, you will have to provide reliable sources and you can't change the whole article just to tell your point. You will need to a new section to discuss the issue and it must conform with Wikipedias Five Pillars, especially the first one Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

In reply to your comment on my talk page, the above comments are nearly a complete explanation. I will add: please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in general and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikipedia is not a forum, blog, soapbox, fan site, newspaper or advice site. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion; Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It is an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable, third-party sources. It does not publish rumors, personal opinions, commentary, advocacy, original research or unsourced information likely to be changed, challenged or disputed. It is not sufficient for a user to refer people to Google. Readers do not come to Wikipedia to be told to do their own research, rather than have reliable, verifiable sources cited to them so they (or editors or reviewers) can check the validity of entries. Unless the allegations you make have been reported in reliable, third-party (neutral) sources, they do not belong in Wikipedia, and even then they should not replace sourced content describing the subject of the article.

October 2017

Your recent editing history at CEX.IO Bitcoin Exchange 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.
You have been told what to do but if you keep going like this you will end up blocked from editing. NZFC^(talk) 04:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CyborgX (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am just trying to add information about the illegal activities of this company to stop them scamming people out of their money and stealing their Identity! IS that a bad thing? I Honestly do not understand WHY I have been named from editing. I made the requested changes to the links.... People need to know this information, this company is scamming people out of 1000's of dollars EVERY DAY! What is more important, pretty web pages or preventing crimes stealing money from little old ladies?CyborgX (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you:
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This is becoming RIDICULOUS!

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CyborgX (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I read all the links I was sent (even though I REALLY do not have the time to do all that! 1) I have only been told "Edit Warning" not SPECIFICALLY WHY I got an edit ban. 2) Yes it is an Edit War because this Scamming company do not want people to know they are stealing investors money! 3) I provided DETAILS of my own PERSONAL experience, as well as a SUMMARY of other's experiences, and backed them up with links to the statements by thousands of other clients of theirs!!!! 4) I was told by e-mai l to post on the Talk page, but I cannot even POST on the talk page!!! I try to follow all your instructions and all you do is send me round and round in circles putting barriers in my way at every point!!! 5) I'm the good guy here! What about trying to HELP instead of helping this company SCAM even more people! 6) Allow BOTH Sets of information to be on the page. You edit it nicely if necessary, and let PEOPLE make their own decision! WHY are you defending the Scamming company when they provide NO PROOF of ANY of their claims, ONLY LINKS TO THING THAT THEY CLAIM TO HAVE.. NO PROOF! At least I provided MULTIPLE sources of posts from 1000's of people!!!!! CyborgX (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Edit warring is disruptive whether or not you're right on the issues. There's no evidence that any, much less all, of the editors who reverted your changes are affiliated with the company, and you should assume good faith of other editors. For example, you might have been reverted because you turned a maybe less-than-perfect but well-sourced article into a page on your personal gripes, without any reliable sources at all. That's not what Wikipedia is for. We do not accept original research or personal experience. Talk about "no proof" - you accuse them of misdeeds without proof of any kind. Where are the media reporting on a fraud conviction? Huon (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

October 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CyborgX (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

== THIS GETS MORE AND MORE RIDICULOUS BY THE MINUTE!!!!! == I WAS TOLD TO PUT THE INFORMATION ON THE TALK PAGE!!!!!!!! I WAS TOLD TO DO SO BYYOUR SUPPORT TEAM!!!!!!! I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF ANOTHER POST AND I LOST THE WHOLE ARTICLE BECAUSE OF YOUR IMMEATE BAN OF ME MINUTES AFTER MY POST, AND I HAVE NO WAY TO GET ALL THAT WORK BACK!!!!!! YOU PEOPLE ARE RIDICULOUS!!!! YOU CAN'T EVEN AGREE WITH EACH OTHER AND PASS OUT BASN AND GAG PEOPLE AS IF YOU ARE POWER MAD GODS!!!! WIKIPEDIA WAS CREATED TO DISEMINATE INFORMATION NOT TO HIDE IT AND CONTROL IT LIKE A GOVERNMENT!!!! YOUR SUPPORT TEMA E-MAILED ME AND TOLD ME:- "start a discussion on the talk page of the article (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CEX.IO_Bitcoin_Exchange>); click "New section" and explain your concerns" HIS NAME IS TIM PRUITT Thanks for making me lose 100's of words in an article I'll NEVER get back and NEVER re-write!!!! Thanks for showing how badly Wikipedia works, and how bad the information on it is, thanks to power mad editors more interested in hearing their own name than actually propagating the truth!!! Finally Thanks for making what was once a useful store of information into just another edited version of the truth! CyborgX (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

All of your grievances are still stored in the page histories, so none of your "work" has been lost. However, Wikipedia is not the venue to right great wrongs, and your attempts to do so are disruptive. Since your unblock appeal does not address this issue, I am declining it. I would recommend reading the guide to appealing a block before posting another unblock request. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.