Please block Lavito principa
Hi, please block  Also if possible delete Draft:Paradoxical Sajid, Pak-Bangla language, Khandaker Abdullah Jahangir under WP:G5. What happend is Lazy-restless creates account, creates draft from IP, waits for some days and then login and edits to became WP:AUTOCONFIRM, and then move article to main namespace. In this way the user gets around G5. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)as a sock of .
Quick message to say thanks for your Web3 is Going Just Great website. I read it as religiously as I do my wordles. You are awesome. All the best! Sara — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for saying so, and I'm glad you like it! GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).
- Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
- Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.
- The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
- A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.
- Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.
Regarding the deletion of Do Kwon tweets
First off, thank you very much for the adjustments you made on the content that I added. I also realized that you deleted some portion on the Do Kwon page regarding his inflammatory tweets. I do understand your logic behind the deletion: that the page should not amount to becoming a gossip page. However, my only concern is that Kwon’s highly inflammatory tweets need to be documented at some level on the page to fully comprehend the crisis that took place.
My logic behind it is that his twitter account was utilized as one of the main outlets for interaction with his investors, therefore what he said on it needs to be considered on a more official ground rather than mere gossip. In fact, his inflammatory remarks were his “official” responses to valid concerns and questions from experts and investors. Hence, I personally think that they should be recorded accordingly. Secondly, my background in public/private financial regulation tells me that The so called “CEO Risk” is an important factor for investors and governance institutions alike. Meaning, the attitude, ethical characteristics, and likability of the CEO or public official of a certain company/institution is one of the most important factors when analyzing a firm/institution or a crisis in general. In other words, my point is that the “CEO Risk” is very much a real thing in the field and Kwon’s tweets are very indicative of it.
Hence, to sum up, I think it is necessary to document his tweets. I am not sayings “all” of his tweets need to be documented, but at least those that related directly to expert and investor concerns and questions. And of course, ones that have been commented and documented on news articles. I just think some justice needs to be done to those who raised valid concerns to Do Kwon and Terraform Labs via their main interactive platform/outlet, and were subsequently abashed to being “poor” and “cockroaches”.
I do not own or have owned any cryptocurrency to be personally engaged in “gossiping” on Kwon. I simply am concerned that important dimensions such as the “CEO Risk” need to be documented to raise valid awareness for everyday investors that do not have much knowledge on financial regulation. Furthermore, I think that the fact that these everyday investors are not only from South Korea, where the firm mainly began its operations, but resulted to a worldwide crisis only further reflects my point that such dimensions of financial risk need to be pertinently documented to mitigate any more crisis of the kind in the future.
I do not have much experience on Wikipedia, as you can see on my account. I do apologize for any customary shortcomings on interacting with you or other users on Wikipedia. I hope to learn and be guided by more experienced people as I venture about here. Thank you very much for reading this and hope to hear your take on this matter soon.
- @Babyjust: While I understand your argument, Wikipedia articles need to reflect what is described in independent, reliable sources (in proportion to the weight it's given in those sources). That means that we as editors should not be making the decision that Kwon's tweets are noteworthy enough to include based on logic like you present above (such as that they illustrate CEO risk), but rather based on whether other reliable sources have chosen to report about it. I suspect that you could find quality sources that do give weight to those tweets, in which case the inclusion could be justified—but "econovill.com" and Business Insider did not seem sufficient to justify their inclusion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I see. I understand what you mean. Thanks a lot for the heads up, really. I will try to look for more reliable and independent sources in the future. Thanks again! Babyjust (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: Hi, just wanted to confirm something about the newly split page of Terra.
I found that the source below was left out on the new page and was wondering whether it was because it was considered an unreliable source?:
I did rewrite the source in the new format (using the original Korean title) that you laid out. The following is the rewritten source:
While I do understand that my translations are not the most pitch-perfect ones, I think they still very close to the original meaning. Hence, I just wanted to get confirmation whether the reason of its deletion is its source? Thanks! Babyjust (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Babyjust: Was it previously included? I don't recall removing it, but if you link me to a revision that contained it I might be able give more context. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Son, Suk-woo (16 May 2022). "Analysis of the (Korean) K-Coins Luna and Terra Crisis and Its Impact on Cryptocurrency". SBS. Archived from the original on 16 May 2022. Retrieved 16 May 2022.
- Son, Seok-woo (16 May 2021). "[이슈분석] 'K-코인' 루나·테라 사태에 가상자산 '쇼크'…영향은?" [[Issue Analysis] Aftermaths of the ‘K-Coin’, Luna and Terra Crisis and the Cryptocurrency’Shock’]. Seoul Broadcasting System (in Korean). Archived from the original on 18 May 2022. Retrieved 18 May 2022.
@GorillaWarfare:: I think it’s this revision where the reference was lost (I’m not sure if this is the customary way of linking old revisions):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terra_(blockchain)&oldid=1088403237 Babyjust (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Babyjust: Oh, I see what happened. There was an issue with the ref name, which was
<ref name=""SBSbizart220516"">(note the double quotation marks). When I edited the page with the visual editor it looks like it didn't know how to handle the broken wikitext. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: I see. I think it’s because of the quotation marks I inserted, not knowing that Wikipedia automatically inserts quotation marks for titles. Will refrain from doing so in future (by the way, I had not the slightest idea you were such an expert guru on Web3 and cryptocurrency. Read about your work yesterday on HBR, truly appreciate the work you’re doing). Babyjust (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)