User talk:NickTheQuick87
Welcome!
[edit]Hi NickTheQuick87! I noticed your contributions to Bot Sentinel and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
February 2023
[edit]
Hello, I'm Schazjmd. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Bot Sentinel, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. YouTube and Twitter are not reliable sources. Learn more at WP:RSPS. Schazjmd (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Bot Sentinel
[edit]Hi, the content you removed in your last couple of edits to the Bot Sentinel article was sourced to The Information, so I have reverted them for now. Please refer to WP:BRD, WP:WAR and WP:NPA. Isi96 (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- The information was behind a paywall, and I searched Google for those articles with nates name etc, and they didn't show up. My bad. But, Those aren't independent sources... they basically just take Bouzys word for everything, how is that reasonable to cite? Can I just have a biased reporter write down my words in a puff piece and cite it too? NickTheQuick87 (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Editing with a conflict of interest
[edit] Hello, NickTheQuick87. 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 conflict of interest 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, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.-- Ponyobons mots 21:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not affiliated with anyone at Bot sentinel or his competitors. I've just seen Bouzy harm people on twitter and some crypto currency communities, and I think people should be aware of the factual things he's done. Knowing more about the sourcing that wikipedia accepts, I'm not going to bother with any more edits to this because unless it ends up in a mainstream new org it's "unreliable." Many of the people he attacks and scams are too small to get that coverage, so I'm not sure how to get that info in here within your rules... I also will think really hard about what kind of credence I lend anything on wikipedia in the future too. You ought to look into this Isi96 guy, he's very quick to change things into a favorable light. Perhaps he's got a conflict he should disclose. NickTheQuick87 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- There's a certain irony in criticizing Wikipedia's criteria for independent reliable sourcing while also stating you will no longer given credence to the content contained herein.-- Ponyobons mots 21:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I can appreciate that irony. I'd put forth that the sources cited in this article aren't independent in that they have an interest in propping up Bouzy to bolster their own credibility and narrative, and Wikipedia excludes things such as a video testing bot sentinels algorithm that a layperson would find credible because they can (and have) reproduced those results themselves. That said, it's clear that the open nature of Wikipedia articles are open to manipulation by people who know how to game the source citing process. Bouzy will be exposed by mainstream sources soon. He's flown to close to the sun on wings of lies. When those citable sourses are available, I'll be back. NickTheQuick87 (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- There's a certain irony in criticizing Wikipedia's criteria for independent reliable sourcing while also stating you will no longer given credence to the content contained herein.-- Ponyobons mots 21:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)