User talk:Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup

November 2020

Your recent bold edit has been reverted. Per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, after a bold edit is reverted, the status quo should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed consensus is formed to keep it.--VViking_TalkEdits 14:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you.--VViking_TalkEdits 14:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptocurrency/blockchain standard notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions – such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks – on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

December 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing. Removing the text of the COI inquiry does not make the inquiry go away. David Gerard (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalising my user page really isn't going to help your case here - David Gerard (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't received a dime from anyone. But you may have been bought: you deny the facts too much, why do you need it? This is not vandalism, but accusing you of lack of not impartiality. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question includes whether you are a holder of TRON, or of tokens on TRON, which I note you have not answered. TRON is your sole topic of editing - David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions include are YOU a holder of cryptocurrencies?--Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not. Are you a holder of TRON, or of tokens on TRON? - David Gerard (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove you don't own cryptocurrency? Will you continue to accuse me off-topic, or will you start looking for a refutation of my words about Tron and Samsung? If you were more attentive to the articles, and not just read the headlines, you would have noticed that I was editing the article about the cartoon. By the way, I'm not happy with your speculations based on the yellow press: you accuse Tron of the Ponzi scheme, but absolutely you forget that Tron is an operating system. Justin Sun created Tron, Bill Gates created Windows. Do you think Bill Gays is guilty of other people's malware installed on Windows? Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard's question is quite fair, due to the conflict of interest guidelines. I am also curious, do you have a financial interest in Tron? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you may not have noticed, I also have a question for Gerard: why does he refuse to check and publish facts about the partnership between Samsung Huawei and Tron (I gave links to primary sources, gave a link to a videoconference, gave links to secondary sources, if you do not believe the Samsung developer site, go to any store in your city and examine new lines of devices, you will find Tron there - they have been on sale for a year already, ), and instead asks me about the ownership of cryptocurrencies, although he knows that this cannot be confirmed in any way? In case you haven't noticed again, I also accuse your Gerard of willful bias (he said that he does not have cryptocurrency, but did he prove it?). The article contains a clear negative and misinterprets a lot of facts. For example, it is written that Justin canceled dinner, but he did not cancel it, but moved the date. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard's removal of content was appropriate; it is not reliably sourced to independent, secondary sources. I've elaborated on this on the talk. On the other hand, given your narrow editing interest and insertion of promotional material sourced to press releases, removing negative material, and removing questions about your editing here, you can probably understand why some may be concerned and wish to inquire on the nature of your editing.

The sentence on dinner is best discussed on talk, however it is reliably sources (to The New York Times) as having caused the price to fall by 20%. "Cancel" could be replaced with "postponed", and some rewording to fit what the source discusses better, but the content is otherwise appropriate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: That's what I'm talking about. I am trying to ensure that the wording corresponds to the truth, and does not distort it. Regarding a reliable secondary source - I threw off a lot of sources, but not one was approved, is this one suitable? https://decrypt.co/10845/samsung-galaxy-phones-to-support-tron-via-blockchain-keystore-app There are many sources, name which you trust and I will most likely find an article there, but the point is that I am accused of press releases, although more than a year has passed since the start of sales. this news has long lost its value, almost all new devices are released from Tron. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you edit without answering the question - which you are visibly evading - you will be blocked - David Gerard (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) you can't ignore David Gerard (talk) he is a Wikipedia:Administrators, because you're a WP:SPA he wants to ensure that their is no WP:COI with your own edits. Regards --Devokewater (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Devokewater: @David Gerard: David Gerard accuses me of things that cannot be proved or disproved. If I say "no", he asks for proof that I simply cannot show. If I say yes, it will be the reason for my blocking. According to the constitution, I cannot oppose myself. He himself did not provide evidence that he does not have cryptocurrency. And it is he who insists on the negative connotation in the article, I insist on a neutral, honest article.The fact that he is an Administrator is not a presumption of innocence. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He can’t be ignored. Regards --Devokewater (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added an appeal to it in the message.Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For that request to be considered, you must:

Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

David Gerard (talk) 14:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

The following sanction has been imposed on you:

Indefinite topic ban from blockchains and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for continued promotional editing on TRON (cryptocurrency), and continuing past multiple warnings.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at WP:GS/Crypto, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. - David Gerard (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protest

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).

Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm accused of getting paid. I completely deny this, and in turn blame the moderators for forbidding me to edit. I believe that they are somehow interested in the negative description of the TRON blockchain (and possibly others). They don't even look at edits.

1. The article says Bittorrent, but write BitTorrent correctly

2. Phrase "TRON Foundation raised $70 million in 2017 through an Initial coin offering shortly before China outlawed the digital tokens[2]" - сontains false information, which also contradicts the article attached as confirmation: China did not ban digital tokens, it banned ICOs. It is also not indicated that following the announcement of the ban, Tron returned the funds raised from investors in mainland China. The source contains this information. https://www.scmp.com/business/money/wealth/article/2157587/tron-cashed-us70-m-coin-sale-chinas-ico-ban-where-it-going It turns out that the administrators either inattentively read the article, or are not literate, or deliberately changed the information.

3. Phrase "Upon this acquisition, in August 2018, BitTorrent Founder Bram Cohen also disclosed that he was leaving the company to found Chia, an alternative to bitcoin created to be a less energy-intensive cryptocurrency.[6]" is a press release, a PR for the non-existent Chia blockchain. The scandal itself served as a fundraiser for the Chia Network Chia is still under development, and is still raising funds. It turns out that in the article you can write about the fundraising of the Chia Network, which has nothing to do with Tron, but I cannot write about Tron's partnership with the large Samsung corporation that took place 1.5 years ago, and for over a year now, the Tron documentation has been available on the Samsung developer site.

Administrators make sure that the article remains as negative as possible. The truth is on my side. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not damage or break wikipedia. The article contains errors. Check the edits that I wanted to make - the information is correct. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 21:55, 26 December 2020 (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. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:25, 26 December 2020 (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.

The purpose of Wikipedia is reliable information.

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).

Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not damage or break wikipedia. The article contains errors. Check the edits that I wanted to make - the information is correct.

The information is taken from the sources already available in the article without modification and ambiguity. Before making edits, I submitted edits for discussion. ' Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 22:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Even apart from the issues that got you blocked (which, remember, is not whether you added correct information, it's that you didn't disclose that you were taking money for making these edits, you will have to edit under a new username, as long strings of apparently random characters are sort of confusing and we've asked people to change them before. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:54, 27 December 2020 (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.

Request

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).

Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't take money. The accusations are groundless. I have already spoken about this.

My nickname is not a random set of characters, but cuneiform. Are you racist? People who know cuneiform can read it.

I repeat, check my edits carefully. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Relatively very few people know cuneiform so it is going to be hard for others to communicate with you if they have to type that as your username; I would also advise proposing a new username. Accusing others of racism when we have no way of knowing your race does not help you. If you are not paid for your edits, then please explain the source of your interest in the topic, the only one you have contributed about. You don't have to be specifically paid for your specific edits to be a paid editor; any paid relationship related to your edits needs to be disclosed. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 27 December 2020 (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.

discussion

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).

Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1. I can change the username, this is not a problem. This is bad, but I can go for it.

2. My source of interest is that the article contains false information and contains errors. After tidying up this article, I'll tackle the next one.

3. There is no paid relationship, in any form. The reliability of information is a matter of principle. Check my information and I'll be right. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Having reviewed the above discussions and this editor's contributions history, I think that it's highly likely that they will continue to edit disruptively if unblocked. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:56, 27 December 2020 (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.

Your answer to 2 is your motivation, not your source of interest. There are six million plus articles here, what drew you to that one? Strong and passionate interest in a single topic is often a red flag of paid editing. What other topics might you edit about? Someone else will review your request. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: People edit articles that interest them. I am interested in the topic of blockchains in general (methods of storing, processing information, ways of their development). I know that I am right and I am fighting to defend my innocence. This is the principle, do you understand? User David Gerard looks biased, which goes against the rules. He doesn't even hide it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-01-27/In_focus He explicitly states that he hates cryptocurrencies. How can a person with such an opinion be allowed to administer articles about Blockchains and cryptocurrencies? I am not going to tell stories, I demand a neutral article containing reliable information (please note, not positive - that you will perceive it as my financial interest, but neutral - that corresponds to the rules of Wikipedia) , as well as the removal of David Gerard from the administration of the topic, to which he has a prejudiced opinion. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My information is reliable, and he has no other way to block the information than to accuse me of receiving money. Let's check my information. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that you came upon this specific article by chance due to a personal interest in the general topic. It's out of my hands now, and up to the next admin, but I would only support unblocking if you agreed to refrain from editing about cryptocurrency for at least 6 months. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: I didn't say that I stumbled upon this article by accident. I've read articles on blockchains. I saw inaccuracies in the article, misrepresentation of facts (even the information taken from the attached verified sources is modified and incorrect). The article is misleading people. The administrator does not go to the discussion, immediately accuses me of receiving bribes and blocks me(this is very suspicious). I require independent verification. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: What surprises me more is that the article is negative towards the fully functional Tron blockchain, but contains PR for fundraising for the Chia blockchain owned by Bram Cohen, which is still in development. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the editor's block on blockchain/cryptocurrency editing, broadly construed, is separate from the apparent undisclosed paid editing block - David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: You haven't checked anything. If you checked my edits, you would be convinced that I am correct. The only thing you have learned is the history of my requests being denied. You are apparently not interested in the veracity of the information. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I require a thorough check

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).

Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My edits are correct.I have provided evidence and can provide it again. The accusations against me are groundless. The article contains false information and distorts the truth.. Jtpoekm8ojillle6hblljjvlup (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are topic banned from cryptocurrencies, so you'll need to find something else to edit. Because this seems to be your only interest, we're basically at a dead end here. I've disabled your talk page access. If you decide that you'd like to edit something other than cryptocurrencies, you can make another unblock request through WP:UTRS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2020 (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.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]