User talk:Vegetablemarket

Spamming smartcontract.com

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

copying comment here that was left on my talk page in this diff Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop undoing my revisions, I am trying to improve the smart contract page.

You just undid my revision and cited it as spam for using the source smartcontract.com but I didn't re-use that source so it wasn't spam! I put a new source in which was about nick szabo (and written by him) and made the introduction easier to understand. One of the issues for the page is that it is confusing to readers so I was fixing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegetablemarket (talk • contribs) 17:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In all three of your edits (and I believe you were probably the IP editor as well) you have used that source:

IP 82.132.219.126:

diff 15:01, 6 March 2018
diff 16:00, 6 March 2018
diff 17:09, 6 March 2018

This account:

diff 16:53, 8 March 2018
diff 16:59, 8 March 2018
diff 17:09, 8 March 2018

this is not ambiguous. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK then I will add the text, because it is easier to understand than what is there currently, but it can use the source already there. Do not reverse the edits with the new sources I'm adding, and then mark them as spam.

You are continuing to use horrible sources. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for selling. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there needs to be a section on use cases on smart contracts, which are enabled by oracles. What is wrong with reports as a source? They are not biased: it is a fact that smart contracts are being used/researched for use in the real world and the best sources for that are currently reports from industry. The sources I've put from industry are surely better than blogs/news articles which are not based on any research but just the writers opinions. Also industry sources arent selling anything.

You are hard selling. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. You should be using the talk page to talk about the content you want to add. The fact that you are trying to force it into the article shows just how hard you are selling this. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have started a discussion on the talk page about real-world applications of smart contracts. I am not trying to sell any of these applications. Smart contracts are not an abstract concept but they are starting to have a real world use now and might be quite major in terms of how all contracts are executed, hence they have been highlighted as an emerging technology. I am new to wikipedia so please show me on the talk page how to add this information properly or what sources are acceptable.

Now that you have started to use talk pages, 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.

This is as a fundamental as "please" and "thank you" in Wikipedia.

Please indent and sign from now on. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I will try to do it correctly. Vegetablemarket (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Smart contract 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) 17:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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) 17:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hard selling

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Smart contract. While objective prose based on independent sources about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Vegetablemarket, I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing. As I have noted several times, within the standards of Wikipedia, your edits about smart contracts have been promotional. 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, Vegetablemarket. 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. 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).

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 any company offering smart contracts or help with smart contracts, directly or through a third party (e.g. a trade organization, 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 being paid to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose that in particular. After you respond (and you can just reply below), 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) 20:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything to disclose, I'm not affiliated with any smart contracts organisations Vegetablemarket (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am struggling to understand the urgency in your editing, as well as the extremely poor sourcing you have insisted on using. The urgency and the low quality of sourcing on a commercial topic are very typical of people who have external relationships driving their editing. What is driving this? Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that published reports that have original research in them were good sources because of the original resarch and not "extremely poor" but since being informed that they are no good, I have instead listed a bunch of sources on the talk page, these are all from books, scientific journals or government, are these also not acceptable? My "urgency" is because I want to improve the page for smart contracts because currently the best information on the internet about smart contracts is from blogs/news articles so I thought wikipedia should have a page that is just as good as those sources.Vegetablemarket (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in your answer, speaks to why this is urgent nor is it explain the insistence on trashy sources. A normal person would have asked what they were doing wrong way, way before you did. Your answer is not making any sense. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not insisting on trashy sources, I just took the time to find different ones, which should be more acceptable as far as I understand. I'm sorry if you don't like the frequency of my edits but I simply I decided to spend some of my free time on this article. I don't understand what I can do to prove I'm not involved in smart contract businesses: I'm a student studying anthropology and I recently took a personal interest in this technology. I also made some edits to the page that have been kept, making it easier to read and to understand, I'm not just here to insert "trashy" sources. Instead of questioning my motivations can we just talk about what would be appropriate to add to the page. Thanks Vegetablemarket (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I "don't like" is your aggression in violating almost every content policy we have as well as the edit warring policy. No Wikipedian "likes" that. There is a learning curve to working in Wikipedia. It is generally advocates (fans or haters) or people with a conflict of interest who behave in exactly that way on exactly this kind of topic - who just try to steam roll past all that to force in their preferred content.

Since you say you are a student, I will assume that you have some literacy with regard to what kind of sources are aiming to try to objectively describe something, and which are pure commercial advocacy. I will assume that you understand that a company website and an industry white paper are exactly commercial advocacy. Those are the only two kinds of sources you chose. That makes your source selection even more difficult to understand. I am not sure where to go even from here.

I will provide you with this: User:Jytdog/How. It is an orientation for new editors. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I haven't tried to use those sources again, so this is not an issue any more. There is no longer a problem. Now I am on the talk page trying to talk about how to expand on the information about the applications of smart contracts to the real world (i.e. beyond cryptocurrency) and I've found some different sources which are from book chapters and journals which should be acceptable. It seems like talking about future implementations is not allowed, but talking about barriers to implementation would be relevant, right? And talking about current examples of use might be a bit more tricky because it could be promotional? Vegetablemarket (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know. Please do have a read of the 'How" document and try to get grounded on what our mission is and how we realize it. Take your time; there is no hurry.

The last thing you should probably be aware of is that our articles about blockchain topics have been hammered by people hyping them. Please stay far, far away from doing that. We aim to provide accepted knowledge; we are open and lots of people confuse that openness as an invitation to do whatever they want and to promote things, but that is not what we do here.

I will see you over at the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]