User talk:Blockchainus Maximus

Welcome!

Hi Blockchainus Maximus! I noticed your contributions 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:

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the logo in Bitcoin's page should be the same width as dogecoin's. "| image_width_1 = 150" --104.234.20.90 (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

done :) Bob (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions notification

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.

Woody (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Cardano

I don't normally edit on cryptocurrency topics at all, and I'm not prepared to try to educate myself on the topic in order to sort out what edits are or aren't problematic, so unfortunately I really don't have very much useful input into the matter. What I will say, however, is that temporary page protection is frequently necessary to stop problematic edits — so your first recourse when an administrator applies page protection is usually to get involved in discussing the edits that are under dispute (whether they were yours or somebody else's) on the article's talk page to arrive at a consensus about them.

(Just by the by, I know it wasn't the primary purpose of your question, but because you mentioned it the "pitchnut" links are there because somebody, in an earlier post to my talk page, used footnoted "references" instead of just providing text links.) Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy reply Bearcat! Fair enough, thanks for the input. hahah that explains it ;) Blockchainus Maximus (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Important information

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions 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 discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions 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 discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hi Blockchainus Maximus! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. JaggedHamster (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies for the confusion on my part, I will most definitely try to label my edits more accurately in future. Thank you for letting me know. I always thought small sentence changes / additions were included in minor edits, thank you for correcting me and showing me the proper edit labeling standards :) Bob (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Cardano (blockchain platform) has special restrictions

As I assume you've seen, every time you edit the Cardano page, there is a big notice at the which says "Editors must not make more than one revert per 24 hours (subject to exceptions)". Your edits are not exceptions. (You can read more about this here). You do not have consensus to add this material. Repeatedly restoring this content against consensus is edit warring and is disruptive.

Your claims about WP:FORBESCON belong on the talk page, and are not persuasive.

Similarly, your use of very flimsy press releases, churnalism, and passing mentions (such as the ZDNet article) to pad-out the citations for the Dish Network "partnership" is likewise WP:POINTed.

Don't add bad sources to support information you personally think is important. Instead, summarize what good sources say. Your understanding of what qualifies as a good source and what is a bad source is not consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We've already been over this, right?

And yes, this material you keep re-adding is overly promotional regardless of your stated intentions.

There are other problems with your recent edits as well. I know it's frustrating, but the burden is on you to gain consensus for these edits.

Grayfell (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Grayfell --

Hi Grayfell, thank you for the reminder - indeed in my enthusiasm I initially added the forbes section back into the updated text on Voltaire, my apologies for this. As you can see I deleted it soon after realizing my mistake, maintaining your edit but also adding my commentary of Forbescon exceptions. The new section on voltaire is an entirely newly re-written piece of text based on your commentary of not enough context, I used a new source and added the context as per your advice. This is not a revert but an entirely new section of text I wrote while keeping your deleted edit on the forbes text. You call this promotional but in what way? It very simply describes the development eras of the last 5 years... this is fact... this is part of the development... It is a shame there is not more information to describe each phase in detail (as many other Cryptocurrency pages do - just look at the ethereum pages, they all use "fun / new" names for development projects). So now simple facts about its development are suddenly promotional? --> you can see in the github that these are part of the ledger... https://github.com/input-output-hk/cardano-ledger/releases/tag/cardano-ledger-spec-2023-01-18 Looking at the Ethereum page just now and I see right near the top they have a huge table with "protocol upgrades" most of which isn't even sourced...

I added the header back to the section on "defi" as I assumed this was done accidentally and is minor. The bulk of the text that you deleted I did not revert. Feel free to delete the header if you feel this is necessary.

Of the 3 sections you deleted I reverted one (Dish) and I was unsure as to which sources you prefer so added what I could find. I also added more text to give the necessary context. Simply deleting the sources you dislike and keeping the most high quality ones allows the relevant material to be kept. It is relevant... it is an application of a technology to a company with millions of users... The addition of a real world application of Cardano to the application section of a wiki page is not promotional. It happened. It is part of Cardano's history. Are we just supposed to ignore any application of the protocol for the rest of time because god forbid its actual use can be considered "promotional"? Thank you though for your advice, I hope the page and information sources used are now improved. Bob (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm just going to focus on the Dish announcement, for simplicity. That's not a pass on the other issues, it's just to keep this conversation at a reasonable length.

This announcement of a future investigation was, (per the press release) "to enhance and optimize its ability to serve its customers." This is typical language from press releases, but it's vapid. It says nothing at all of substance, since it's not designed to. It is a promotional source, so any neutral summary of it will be promotional. If this were really significant, it would be possible to cite reliable independent sources which explained why these details were significant. it No source you have cited, nor any source I have seen, has indicated how this partnership has affected even a single one of the company's millions of users. Either of us could try and figure it out, but that would be WP:OR. If this is significant to Cardano, it should be possible to find something more than press releases and business churnalism that directly links this to Cardano. There is the one single passing mention form one reliable outlet: Additionally, Dish and Input Output Global, the company behind the Cardano blockchain, announced a partnership agreement to build blockchain-based services together. In short, Dish is comfortable with cryptocurrency.[1] That source even helpfully tells us why it's mentioning the Cardano announcement, and it's really not all that significant to Cardano in that context.

So I've looked for more recent sources to try and find out what happened, and I haven't found any which are usable. I found some press releases and some unreliable junk mentions Cardano, but the few reliable sources for this program don't tie it to any specific blockchain. (That doesn't mean they aren't out there, just that I didn't find them). Those press releases don't really explain anything, even when they purport to. Per IOHK, this is about Dish's "Boostcoin" program. IOHK did not explained what a Boostcoin is, nor why Dish would actually want such a complicated system to keep track of what appear to be loyalty points.

Some sources did explain what Boostcoin is, but they don't tie it to Cardano, nor do they suggest this is significant or widely used. For example: this Verge article which cites this CNET article, neither of which mention any specific blockchain at all. (Even Boostmobile's own website currently seems to downplay the blockchain element.)

To add this is to imply that it has significance, but as I've said multiple times before, significance comes from reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The text you deleted explained the impact namely: loyalty points and digital IDs. Loyalty points in the context of any industry can be spent or exchanged for discounts in almost every online platform I have used so far and digital IDs speak for themselves really... your ID encrypted with the security of the blockchain. Alright I get the first source was "vapid" - the reason I included the others sources was purely so you were able to choose which was reasonable, several of which were perfectly reasonable imo. You seem to have also deleted the context that I added explaining Dish's relevance...did you also mean to delete the two last bullet points of the application section? Bob (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean to delete those.

The sources you added were not perfectly reasonable by Wikipedia's standards. You added many bad sources and then... what, you expected me to pour over them to find some which might theoretically be usable? I've already spent enough time trying to explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

I know what loyalty points are, but none of the usable sources linked 'loyalty points' to 'Cardano' nor did they explain why it was encyclopedically significant. Perhaps going into detail about Boostcoins was a mistake. I explained the background about Boost to show that I'm putting effort into understanding this so we can improve the article. I did not add any of that to that to the article because we need reliable sources to spell it out for us. I have already tried to explain this multiple times. Grayfell (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Improvements to the Tezos article

Hi Blockchainus Maximus, I am working to improve the Tezos article and ensure the content accurately reflects the sources. I have a pending request on the talk page. I noticed that you have shown interest in blockchain and cryptocurrency, and that you made a relevant edit to the Tim Draper article in the past. Therefore, I thought you may be interested in reviewing my edit request and implementing the changes, if you agree with the suggestions. Of course, I would be happy to hear any feedback you may have. Thanks, Lauraattezos (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Tesla Cybertruck

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Tesla Cybertruck, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)