User talk:Technoir2

Technoir2, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Technoir2! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency related articles have been placed under special measures

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.

MER-C 18:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Technoir2. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing. Your edits to date are very promotional with regard to Dash. Lots of people come to Wikipedia with some sort of conflict of interest and are not aware of how we manage it. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Technoir2. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. Managing conflict of interest well, also protects conflicted editors themselves - please see WP:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for some guidance and stories about people who have brought bad press upon themselves through unmanaged conflict of interest editing.

As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do). Please be aware that holding a cryptocurrency constitutes a conflict of interest in Wikipedia.

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by our WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with XXX, directly or through a third party (e.g. a PR agency or the like)? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, please disclose it, and if you are editing for pay or the expectation of being paid, you must disclose that. After you respond (and you can just reply below), if it is relevant I can walk you through how the "peer review" part happens and then, if you like, I can provide you with some more general orientation as to how this place works. Please reply here, just below, to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, I am a holder of the currency but otherwise not connected with Dash Core Group and am not being paid for this work. I do feel that the current article is lacking in a lot of areas that I am knowledgeable about, so am attempting to rewrite it, being careful to provide references for each change. I have had previous changes reverted because they referenced 'Dash Force News' which the moderators here regard as a promotional organisation. In subsequent edits I am being careful to source my data from official communications made by Dash Core Group - I hope these types of sources are acceptable. I am happy to have each change peer reviewed, so please do walk me through the process as I have many more additions that I would like to make. Technoir2 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying! Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting (see WP:THREAD) - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit. That is how we know who said what to whom and when.

Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).

I know this is insanely archaic and unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second...Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for being forthright, and for keeping this simple. These conversations can so easily go south, and I appreciate you being gracious.

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI or who are paid, and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page; and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section, put the proposed content there, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) please the {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies.

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. (With regard to sourcing, the place where you are going wrong, is using sources almost solely from Dash. That turns into a mouthpiece for Dash, and that is not what WP is. The "How" document talks about this.) Learning and following the policies and guidelines is important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians. ( I don't think this will be a problem with you!)

I hope that makes sense to you.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to work on the Dash article or any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jytdog, I've had a read of the various polices / guidelines and am happy to follow the peer review process going forward. I'll be submitting some proposed changes shortly. Thanks for your help Technoir2 (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sourcing

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Dash (cryptocurrency), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

04-AUG-2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Dash (cryptocurrency), is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. As far as this message on your talk page is concerned — since the diff of it is now safely stored, please feel free to do with it as you wish. spintendo 03:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Dash (cryptocurrency) 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) 16:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional editing

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Dash (cryptocurrency), you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing is COI gone wild. Please restrain yourself. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With respect @Jytdog:, I made a number of changes that were discussed on the talk pages and approved by neutral reviewers, which have then been unilaterally removed by other editors without any discussion whatsoever. If you are requiring me to go through a review process to get each change approved, then at the very least I should be able to revert deletions of those approved changes if the person deleting them has not engaged in any discussion beforehand. Technoir2 (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IF you make edits that are pre-approved on talk, please note that in the edit note. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean I can put the release history infobox back then, since that was approved in talk? Technoir2 (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with Jtbobwaysf's judgement on that. We can discuss on talk.Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

You are aware of the general sanctions on crypto via the notice above.

I reminded you of those sanctions on the talk page here.

Even so, you allowed your frustration to drive you to do this, trying to use COI as a bludgeon, and commenting on contributor on the article talk page, rather than on the content.

To answer your question, I own no cryptocurrencies. The only thing I know about cryptocurrencies is from reading sources in the course of dealing with the advocates for various cryptocurrencies who keep dumping their badly sourced promotional garbage into our beautiful project, and trying to generate acceptable content where that is possible under the policies and guidelines. Its kind of an interesting topic but dealing with the advocates is just tedious. They all behave the same way.

I was hopeful about the start you made and I am sorry you were guided down the wrong path by having so many unacceptable proposals get implemented. I understand your frustration. However, your frustration is your problem, not mine.

If you allow your frustration, financial conflict of interest, and passion for this coin to drive you to breach our behavioral policies and guidelines again, I will probably seek an indefinite block under the general sanctions and I have little doubt that an admin or the community will implement that.

Please restrain yourself and please try to put Wikipedia's mission first -- please engage with what we actually do here and how we do it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"trying to use COI as a bludgeon"? I asked a fair question, the same question you asked of me when making edits that you considered too promotional. When you're consistently deleting content from one crypto article but none of the others is it not fair to ask whether you also have a COI? Technoir2 (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is a question that belongs on a user talk page, not on the article talk page, and not in the midst of a disagreement about content. You are speeding toward an indefinite block. fwiw I recommend that you walk away from your computer for a while. Jytdog (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misprepresenting others

In this diff you misrepresented the problems I presented with the BI piece here.

This is not reddit, and misrepresenting other people is behavior that will get you indefinitely blocked. See WP:TALKNO. You can correct that comment by redacting it; see WP:REDACT. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019 US Banknote Contest

US Banknote Contest

November-December 2019

There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons.

In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.

If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]