User talk:MER-C/archives/42

Welcome to my talk page!

Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless there's a better place for them. Please read the following helpful hints before posting:

• Wikipedia is a volunteer curated encyclopedia. That means it is not a social networking site, a place for self-promotion, a marketing medium or a free web host. You are expected to be familiar with the goals of this project before you post here.
• Think. Use common sense. Read this before posting; failure to do so may result in your posts being ignored or mocked.
• If you wish to discuss your link additions, I advise you to be read our conflict of interest and spam policies before posting. These pages contain information about the appropriateness of link additions.
• I prefer to be contacted here (as opposed to email) where possible. You're much more likely to get a prompt response.
• I do not consider unblock or undeletion requests sent via email. Please refer to Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks to appeal your block. You may request undeletion here.
• Off-wiki evidence of undisclosed paid editing must not be posted here. These, and complex cases of paid editing will not be acted upon. In both cases, please email paid-en-wp wikipedia dot org.

Start a new talk topic

Cryptocurrency Related Special Measures, and Forward Steps

Hello! I saw you posted a warning about cryptocurrency related articles on my page. I was hoping you would take a look at my comments/questions located on my talk page so I can move forward in the correct manner and not step on anybody's toes. Userbrn (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

AFC rejections

Hey, when you can, could you do something about these drafts? (redlink intentional) They're categorized in red categories, which I'm trying to get rid of. Thanks! spiderjerky (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The categories will become blue within the next couple of weeks. Just let them be. MER-C 14:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hi! I just asked before about how I can search for a page using the name and date of creation. Special:Recentchanges, Special:Log/create didn't seem to help because of their limitations. I guess database queries will be my last resort. I just have no idea about the table and columns structure to make a proper query. I initially wrote that SQL statement.

SELECT * FROM dummy_table WHERE page_name like '%Obama' AND creation_date = 'June 2017';

Would you please correct it for me using the right names of columns and table to achieve what I want? Thanks. Sillva1 (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The MediaWiki database schema is documented at mw:Manual:Database layout. MER-C 12:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe I'm good to go with my query, except I can't find the column that defines the creation date of the page. It's not in the "page" table. Sillva1 (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Join the revision table and require rev_parent_id = 0. MER-C 13:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

What is the column that connects both of them so I can join the two tables? Sillva1 (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Ahem. MER-C 14:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I still didn't specify a column where I would insert the date. Specifying rev_parent_id = 0 alone doesn't refer to any specific date. Sillva1 (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not here to read the documentation for you. MER-C 10:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, I was able to link the two tables correctly and used the parameters needed. I still have one thing that I can't figure out. How can I specify only the year and the month? The timestamp needs everything including seconds. Is there a function to do so? Thanks. Sillva1 (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Choose your days and times carefully. 20171201000000 < timestamp < 20180101000000 means everything created in December 2017 (UTC). MER-C 14:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Possible meat or sock on AFD Rick Chrls

On the AFC for Rick Chrls (diver), User:ProfessorGuy a newly created account, their first edit on Wikipedia was a keep vote on the AFD. I know previous sock(s) were blocked on the AFD, so just a heads up. JC7V-constructive zone 18:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It would be premature to block for sock/meatpuppetry based on that one edit, even though it's suspicious. Certainly one to keep an eye on. MER-C 18:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

GNT

Hi, please elaborate why have you reverted my edit for GNT disambiguation?

best, Piotr— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tworec (talk • contribs) 21:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

We don't allow red links on disambiguation pages unless the topic is plausibly notable. This one isn't, and is considered spam: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golem (software). MER-C 10:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Alltheniko on Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Dear MER-C,

the site Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Yawn is linking to one of my articles: Alltheniko (the other ones are still drafts...). As a writer, I know there is no COI. I wonder how it got there?! Could you perhaps explain the background? Thank you very much in advance.

With kind regards, --DMF-Muster (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I identify these articles via a set of heuristics based on the new pages feed. They are significantly more likely to have undisclosed conflicts of interest, created by sockpuppets for PR purposes in return for undisclosed payments, are promotional and/or fail notability criteria than a random grab-bag of new pages. The heuristics aren't perfect and there are, of course, false positives. I only take into account edits on the English Wikipedia -- the situation would definitely warrant investigation (as a user with 16 edits creating a fully-formed article about a band) if it weren't for your editing history on other Wikipedias. MER-C 10:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hedera Hashgraph (Hashgraph Article)

Hello MER-C

Any particular reasons why the page is now semi protected?

I had some suspicions that the Wikipedia community doesn't take too kindly to blockchain tech, makes it hard to educate visitors to your site when everything gets 'filtered'.

Should I be submitting all the edits to you directly instead since I can no longer add anything?

P.S.: Creating a username is not an option, this is a work computer and not using a private login at work. Unfortunately your recent change discriminated contributors like myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.127.94 (talk • contribs)

I'd propose adding stuff on the talk page. All content on Wikipedia should be supported by reliable sources, and must not promote the subject. We're sick of poorly sourced, promotional content being added to blockchain and cryptocurrency related topics and this is how we stop it. And if you mean "write vague, grand prognostications on how blockchain will change the world" by "educate", then no thanks. Wikipedia takes a wait and see approach; we're an encyclopedia and aren't in the hype business. MER-C 09:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

And there lies most of the problem, what Wikipedia says as unreliable source is often more of an opinion than factual. The inventor of the technology as a Ph.D., his expertise in this field alone has more merit than a dozen editors on Wikipedia. It is a sad day when Wikipedia doesn't accept the word of man with a doctorate. As for the "hype business", your statement simply has no weight, not after I have seen tons of article with poor citations and credibility under the same category, yet Hashgraph is one of the topic that has been mutilated the most.

This should be no surprise by now, but many created their own wiki to cover crypto currency as they feel Wikipedia can no longer be trusted for fair account creation. Put aside "fanboys", they are some legitimate edits that users wants to do but can't make, yet other topics/languages on Wikipedia has gotten away with much worse. The community is supposed to be fair, yet some projects are being discriminated.

In the end, my argument has no weight either because this article will get done from the mere traffic of requests. I would rather contribute now than having to wait later. Just to give you a scope of how many businesses has established grounds around this technology is at least 1,000 developers, 40k telegram users, 19 vested blue chips company. At some point, there will be looking for answers and when many realizes Wikipedia has almost nothing, edits will be spamming left and right.

As for my personal interest, I believe this technology has potential and education is important in this space. However, I am not so sure Wikipedia is the place people can get their education anymore. On a side note, when people talk about crypto currency, the capital invested needs to also be mentioned since capital is what backs the project against Sybil attacks. Lower market capital projects have a limited digital cryptographic security.66.46.127.94 (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to this, apart from that if we want to clean up existing articles we should stop the influx of poorly sourced, promotional content first. MER-C 18:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The page Rayan Tarraf

Hi, I Just saw your request for deletion of the page Rayan Tarraf. Please guide me to what is wrong as I'm still new to this. DubaiScripter (talk) 04:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

What, if any, affiliation do you have to the subject of this page? MER-C 09:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

My Ban after modification of the XRP Ledger Page

Hello,

You just banned me after my reverse editing of the Ripple (Payment protocol) / XRP Ledger (payment protocol). I would like to appeal that decision. Here is why :

First, here is what the person that reversed my editing said on the talk page( Talk:XRP_Ledger_(payment_protocol):

" I've reverted Benwhale1's recent page move from Ripple (payment protocol) to XRP Ledger (payment protocol). As a Google search reveals 12.80 million results for ripple payment and 4.53 million for xrp ledger, "XRP Ledger" could not possibly be the common name for this payment protocol.

I've also reverted Benwhale1's addition of spam links (here and here). — Newslinger talk 03:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC) "

Now, here is my answer to this, on the talk page :

"As an answer to Newslinger revert of my edit :

- as seen on the developer website, which is the reference/main source for all people looking for information to use and build software on top of the open-source XRP ledger : XRP Ledger is the name. Most people don't know that Ripple protocol is the former name XRP Ledger Overview

- using google search ( that you didn't provide any link to ) and comparing "XRP Ledger" with "Ripple payment " isn't a proof of anything because : " ripple payment " search results includes also the result related to ripple , the company, which provides payment softwares and solution.

Hence, among those 12.80 million results , it is impossible to know which one are related to the XRP Ledger /Ripple Protocol as an open source platform and which are related to Ripple, the company, and its software and business news. Most news related to Ripple software such as xRapid, xCurrent and others will include keywords " ripple " and " payment". As it can be seen among the first pages of result on Google, most of the link are business news related to Ripple the company, and its customer using software such as xCurrent and xRapid : these news are not directly about the open source XRP Ledger

- Finally, I will add that a look at google trends shows that much more searches are done for " XRP Ledger " than " Ripple payment " either if you look at the last 12 months or the last 5 years. source : Google trends : "XRP ledger " ; " Ripple payment"

So as you can see :

- my edit is backed by multiple sources and a detailed reasoning

- his edit his backed by only one thing which is google search, using terms of search that are too broad and that can be unrelated to the topic

The fact that the XRP Ledger is named " XRP Ledger " and not Ripple Protocol is not a debate. It's the new name, that can be seen on the github source of the Ledger code : " Decentralized cryptocurrency blockchain daemon implementing the XRP Ledger in C++" . XRP Ledger Github. It can also be shown from google trends results with, and on the main website used as a reference for devs building software on top of the XRP ledger XRP Ledger Dev Portal

I can provide more information, but destroying my work on the page and banning me while I justified everything I did with sources is just not fair. XRP and the XRP Ledger is open source and based around a community where absolutetly no one refers to it in other way than " XRP Ledger ".

About the links you categorized as " spam ", they are not autopromotion nore spam (i'm not related to these websites in any way ): the XRP Community Blog " By the XRP Community, for the #XRPCommunity" " brings together multiple bloggers from the XRP community in a collaborative effort on one platform, and the " XRP fudd bingo " is a website made by one of biggest contributor to the XRP community : WietseWind : he created multiple tools : ledger.exposed that allows to explore all XRP wallet, XRP fudd bingo that explains some misconceptions about the XRP ledger, and also the XRP tip bot, used by hundred of people to send XRP tips on twitter, discord and reddit.

So these are not " spam " links : these are actual tools helping growing the XRP ecosystem, supported by many and also done without any financial retribution. How can I talk about the XRP community if I cannot explain or quote the main initiatives made inside it by its members ? Benwhale1 (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You are topic banned for:

1. Reverting the move back to the original title. It doesn't matter whether you are right or not. You are expected to get consensus before you move it back.
2. Restoring the paragraph "However, the community around XRP has been growing at a steady rate..." and "Other initiatives by community members...", which are promotional of Ripple, are probably original research and contained zero reliable sources. You were explicitly told and are expected to back all your edits with reliable sourcing.
3. Our verifiability policy states you were (not are, since you are topic banned) only allowed to add information about Ripple and its community if it has been published by reputable media outlets with a reputation for fact-checking. You are sanctioned (in part) for violating this policy. MER-C 17:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

1. What does it mean ? What's the exact moment I know I can revert back and " have consensus " ? As far as I know, I gave a complete answer in the talk section of the XRP ledger article, with multiple sources and elements to the person that reverted the title. He didn't answer back. What am i supposed to do ? Why doesn't he get warned for reverting my title without any other facts than " I typed this on google so this is a proof " ?

2. I should have added statistics such as social media stats, reddit stats or reliable articles on the growth of the community and I'm sorry for not having done that, that is my mistake.

3. Promotional of Ripple : what do you mean ? Ripple the company ? the cryptocurrency ? the ledger ? Please be more specific. I will repeat my question : how am I supposed to talk about the XRP community if I can't talk about the people and the services created by members of this community ? A community is built by its members. Benwhale1 (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

If you weren't topic banned, you would create a discussion, outline your argument, list it on Wikipedia:Requested moves, get outside opinion. Someone will come along and action the request if you get agreement in a week's time. As to why you, and only you, were sanctioned: see WP:BRD. By reverting the revert, you started the edit war.

Promotional of what? It doesn't matter. As for talking about the XRP/Ripple community: you don't, unless it is covered by reliable sources. End of story.

I strongly recommend you edit other areas of the encyclopedia before appealing your topic ban, so that you can learn about our policies and practices. If you continue to edit blockchain or cryptocurrency related pages you will be blocked. MER-C 20:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Baffled idiot

Hi, MER-C. I don't understand your instructions for how to use your User:MER-C/payattention.js script, I'm baffled. (Protect? Unprotect? Huh?) Could you tell me what to do in words of one syllable, please? Bishonen | talk 12:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC).

You need to add mw.loader.load("//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MER-C/payattention.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript"); (copy it verbatim) to the user's common.js (User:USERNAME/common.js). Protection works like any other wiki page -- you need to do apply full protection to stop the user from removing the script. See the history of User:PedroAnimanga/common.js. To remove the script, remove the same line or delete the page. You have an alternate account for testing, no? MER-C 13:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Who, me? (Blush.) I see TheSandDoctor's addition of the script, but isn't something supposed to show up on the user's talk? I don't see anything. It doesn't matter for this user, as he has continued to ignore all warnings + ANI, so I've indeffed him. It's for future occasions that I'd like to use it. Bishonen | talk 13:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC).

The script is supposed to add an alert box at every edit screen except when editing the user's own talk page. The new interfaceeditor permission may prevent you from using this trick, but we'll see. MER-C 14:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I really do have to test it with Bishzilla, then. Bishonen | talk 14:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC).

And it worked! Thank you! Bishonen | talk 14:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC).

Deceptive editing at Draft:DJ Spaxx

Two weeks ago, you moved DJ Spaxx to draft following some sock puppet investigations and advertising issues [1]. Today it popped up in the NPP queue again, following the most facepalmy series of fig leaf edits possible [2] - I have no idea what the editor thought he was putting over on reviewers, but it clearly wasn't too well thought out. I have moved it back to draft, and at this juncture I guess I would suggest deleting the draft, as it is likely to attract the same kind of attention in the future. (Also probably socking out Bdgeb, but that's really beyond my bailiwick :). Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep, it's another sock. I rechecked all the remaining drafts and found two others. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pptt226. MER-C 16:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have nominated the used copyvio images for deletion on Commons. Apparently User:Tituvf736 and User:Sadfe08 are additional Commons-only accounts used for the image uploading. GermanJoe (talk) 16:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've noted these accounts at the SPI (one is registered here). MER-C 16:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Page re-do

Hi I gather from the editing comments you deleted a page I was working on. I was hoping you might be able to give me some feedback on this page now I have re-written it and copied it below. I have not published it in this form. I have the permission of the subject and there is no defamatory or controversial material included. Thank you in advance for your input. Spt.08Spt.08 (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to let you know following the suggestions from another editor I have published the re-written page in Draft talk:Margaret Baker-Genovesi with some further edits. Thanks again. Spt.08 (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing before proceeding further. MER-C 16:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

ANI about your use of the block tool

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I’m willing to admit when I’m wrong. I obviously know nothing about spambots and how to detect them. So, let’s consider that part of it conceded. I still disagree with your approach to non-spambots but apparently it’s been decided that the discussion is over. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

If I could add just one little thing: It would be more clear to persons not intimately familiar with the detection of spambots if you would use “spambot” in your block summary instead of “spammer” Just a thought. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Hi MER-C. In that discussion, I got involved ill-advisedly, mistakenly believing that I had a handle on part of the issue. Fram made me realize my error. Tony says I was insulting. For that I apologise. I consider you, and he, to be doing an excellent job at the coalface countering spam. In that fight, there can be issues of subtle policy and philosophy that I find interesting, possible collateral damage for example. I think these issues are important to air, but sometimes my posts appear conflate the persons behaviour with the underlying issues that I raise. I want to assure that I intend no disrespect, and apologise for where it may appear evident. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
  • No problems. MER-C 14:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Question on Payment21 Page deletion

Hi, I understand the sanctions taken against the users who posted the entry about Payment21 in June 2018. These users got blocked and/or banned for valid reasons, and as a result, no form of appeal seems to be possible, even though the actual content of the article, that was affected by blocking these users, has not been reviewed with regards to its worthiness for publication. To what extent are other Wikipedia-admins allowed to publish a new article about this officially licensed Swiss-based payment gateway? I have analyzed a number of crypto-related entries on Wikipedia and realize that many of such crypto-currency-entries meet fewer inclusion requirements than this site. IMHO, it is indeed a genuine site and appears to be noteworthy in comparison to others. So I would like to check with the community whether or not Wikipedia needs an article about Payment21. Currently, I hesitate to move forward because of your earlier actions. Let me know if you are in the position to discuss this matter. Your guidance would be highly appreciated. Thanks for your consideration.

WhatAboutKrypto (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The short answer is no.

The long answer is that if you can find multiple reliable sources that cover Payment21 in substance and entirely on its own merit (i.e. no PR, reprinted press releases or marketing stunts such as an interview of the founder), back its content entirely by reliable sources and not promote Payment21 then we're willing to consider it. See the inclusion guidelines for companies. Cryptocurrency enthusiast sites are not reliable sources and routine matters such as staff turnover or fundraising do not constitute substantial coverage. I consider this to be unlikely.

I must also alert you to the special measures that are in place for this topic because of rampant abuse of Wikipedia as a promotional medium. MER-C 19:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

I have checked and identified 45 sources related to Payment21. 19 look good, the other 26 are in context but not really worthwhile as it relates to PR. Overall, the sources support the case multiple times, however, it is kind of repetitive info.

Find the list of the 19 credible sources linked below. All of the good sources are either official or the publication has been handled by an independent journalist or editor (hence, no advertising). My finding proves there have been separate articles written about Payment21. Some journalistic work utilizes quotes from various announcements but this information appears to be consistent. I have ordered the credible links by authenticity, the first one being the most trustworthy source (IMHO):

1. https://www.finma.ch/en/finma-public/authorised-institutions-individuals-and-products/#query=Moving%20Media
2. https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/meet-people-pushing-regulated-taxable-cryptocurrency-1613246
3. http://thetokenwire.com/bitfinex-moving-the-worlds-fifth-largest-crypto-exchange-to-switzerland/
4. https://www.novis.eu/en/news/first-european-life-insurance-company-jumping-into-the-digital-currency-age
5. http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/payment21-and-aci-worldwide-enable-anti-money-laundering-compliant-bitcoin-payments-globally-1001856697
6. https://cointelegraph.com/news/switzerland-awards-first-amlkyc-licence-to-bitcoin-company
7. https://www.finews.ch/news/finanzplatz/29293-payment-21-bitcoin-finma-lizenz
8. http://www.bobsguide.com/guide/news/2017/Feb/15/aml-compliant-bitcoin-cashier-system-wins-constantinus-award/
9. https://www.constantinus.net/award/de/wall-of-fame/wall-of-fame-detail.html?id=3973
10. http://www.paymenteye.com/2017/02/27/case-study-benefits-of-bitcoin-payouts-for-the-gaming-industry/
11. https://www.thepaypers.com/cryptocurrencies-bitcoin-virtual-currencies/payment21-teams-up-with-coinfirm-to-integrate-blockchain-analysis-solutions/772235-39
12. https://cryptovalley.swiss/member-directory/?search_user=Moving+Media+GmbH
13. https://calvinayre.com/2017/03/30/bitcoin/beckys-affiliated-highly-regulated-operators-can-enjoy-bitcoin-solutions-pablo-magro-video/
14. http://www.computerworld.ch/news/it-branche/artikel/st-galler-firma-erhaelt-finma-lizenz-fuer-bitcoin-kassasystem-73302/\
15. https://mining-cryptocurrency.ru/payment21-licenziya-finma/
16. https://github.com/payment21
17. https://www.moneyhouse.ch/en/company/moving-media-gmbh-1065426779
18. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/payment21
19. http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=308431767

Comparing Payment21 with other crypto companies, I am inclined to say that most of the online references are reliable. Since the company is officially licensed by the Financial Market Authority, which appears to be a rare quality in the cryptocurrency industry indeed, I suggest considering unflagging them. Alternatively, I could write a new article based on the credible sources only, however, do you think such an article makes sense for the Wikipedia community?

P.S. If there are any articles in the list i have provided above that do not meet Wikipedia's requirement, please kindly point them out so I can remove them.

WhatAboutKrypto (talk) 12:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking at your top five with an eye to establishing notability:

1. Not a secondary source, not in-depth coverage.
2. Not intellectually independent (company's claims presented as-is, without challenge or critical analysis).
3. Not a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking, not in-depth coverage.
4. Press release.
5. Press release.

Of your 19, it is highly likely that none of them demonstrate notability and a large portion of them are not reliable sources. Again, please read and understand Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. MER-C 15:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Spam section

Could you please remove my site from spam section? I didn't know that I broke some rules. I'll never do this again. In addition, I fixed some dead links with archived and newer versions. Petermelville (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

If so, no action will be taken. However, I've encountered far too many lies from spammers in the past and for that reason we do not remove past reports. MER-C 13:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

It's OK. You can delete this section if you want. Petermelville (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Cardano Development Additions Rejected

Hello, I added more information about Cardano's slated development, but my additions were reverted and I don't understand why. All the information I added is true and I included third party sources for all of it. Why were my additions reverted and how can I avoid this in the future, both with cryptocurrency-related subjects and others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamSamuel11 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You did not supply a single reliable source to back any of the content, and the content was promotional. Cryptocurrency enthusiast websites are not reliable sources because they do not have a reputation for fact-checking. MER-C 10:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that. I could certainly use Cardano's website itself given that I merely mean to include information about planned development. Can you confirm this would also not be reliable sourcing given it is not third-party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamSamuel11 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Correct. We're not interested in what a business has to say about themselves. Reliable sources must be intellectually independent -- this also excludes reprinted press releases, churnalism and articles where the claims of the company are repeated without question. MER-C 15:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Secondly, how was the content I added "promotional." I merely included described what the Cardano team has laid out as the future development of their project, and I qualified every statement as "planned/slated/etc." How is this not useful, relevant, objective information about Cardano's "Development" that would be of interest to anyone using Wikipedia to learn about Cardano?SamSamuel11 (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Roadmaps are promotional -- the intended purpose is to generate hype through that plan. Many ICO roadmaps are unfeasible (technically, legally, and/or economically), unrealistic, grandiose, fraudulent, a poor fit for the market or propose products that are unfit for purpose. They should not be added them without independent commentary from reliable sources. MER-C 16:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright. I disagree, but alright.--SamSamuel11 (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency & Blockchain

Hi Mer-C,

Hope you have been having a great day. I would like to enquire about general sanctions with regards to Cryptocurrency and blockchain. My question is with regards to the article I have written on HelloGold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:HelloGold. I find the article worthy and interesting to explore as it gives Muslims assurance in trading due to the platform being Shariah compliant. I also understand the general sanctions on cryptocurrency due to it being too abundant and hard to edit. I would like some advice as I am thinking of resubmitting my article complying with Wikipedia standard.

I would like to enquire if the sanctions are mostly on cryptocurrency or all blockchain technology. I would also like your advice on how to create articles that complies with Wikipedia and not being subject to general sanctions.

I look forward to hearing from you and thank you so much for the guidance when my article was sanctioned.

Best Regards, Shabeer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabeer92 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Any content related to blockchain technology or cryptocurrencies (both broadly construed) is under sanctions. You are required to supply reliable sourcing -- it must be intellectually independent and secondary sources -- to back any blockchain or cryptocurrency related content you add.

You must not edit Wikipedia for advertising, marketing, public relations or other promotional purposes. Do you have a conflict of interest regarding HelloGold? If so, you must disclose this in accordance with Wikipedia policy and, where applicable, securities law. MER-C 14:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

CathyUK

Hello MER-C, can you please take a look at Arish43 a newly registered user who recreated Michael Belkin (Professor) previously created by CathyUK you blokced and the use of edit summary is exactly same. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@GSS: 11 more socks found, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ws95684. MER-C 20:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

POTD colsize

FYI, when you do the POTD templates, you can't leave the colsize parameter blank, as you did in Template:POTD/2018-09-06. When you do that, the image gets put in as full size in the column version, although when I look at {{POTD column}} it's supposed to default to 300, but maybe I did that wrong. Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 17:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The instructions state that the colsize parameter is optional. Maybe they're wrong? MER-C 19:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe I meant "optional" in the sense of "if you don't use it, don't include it". —howcheng {chat} 22:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Community Health Metrics Kit consultation

The Community Health Metrics Kit is a new project to measure more aspects of our communities. If you are interested in metrics, statistics, and measurement of editing and contributing, please join us on Meta to discuss how and what the new project should measure! Please share this with anyone else you think may be interested in this work. This message is also available in other languages. For the Community health initiative, Cheers, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Humorous Observation

Your main page states you don't engage in paid editing but your WIKIOPOLY board explicitly states to "Collect $200 salary as you pass" which sort of sends a mixed signal...and after 17 hours awake I find that hilariously funny for some reason :) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Informal RFC

Hi. Thanks for leaving the 1RR template on my page. Can you review those and tell me if I'm in gross violation of any (POV and/or edit warring) policies? I would appreciate an opinion of someone uninvolved. [3] [4] Fireice (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Just an update I decided to ask for WP:THIRD. I would appreciate your input Fireice (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for not being online yesterday. The consensus at ANI was to topic ban you, which I have now enacted. MER-C 08:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

That's ok. Can you please (genuine question, please feel free to humour me if it eases the tension) explain what I was tbanned for? Was it the two edits I made before Jytdog posted a warning on my talk? Fireice (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Not following the conflict of interest guideline (particularly WP:COITALK -- while you are not paid, the idea is the same), tendentious editing and ignoring my GS notification. You've been here for 11 years, you should know better. MER-C 14:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it has been 10 years, but I don't think it will be much longer. I need to collect some thoughts for a goodbye at VP Fireice (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Notre-Dame Basilica (Montreal)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Notre-Dame Basilica Interior, Montreal, Canada - Diliff.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)