User talk:HashBit782

August 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Bitcoin Magazine, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 05:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your remark . I added a source afterwards. I just did it in a separate step. Did you see? HashBit782 (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

links

Hi, we only generally link to another article one time. You are adding WP:OVERLINKs to articles. Please correct those. We also dont do external links, please see WP:EL. Please correct the edits you have made to comply with these policies. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GS

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 authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, 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.

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Hi

I reverted your addition to Bitcoin Magazine which Materialscientist had previously also removed. Please be aware that Crypto articles are under a 1RR restriction, I put the template above. Please also be aware that we are not using any primary sources, cryptomagazines (coindesk, etc), and are only using top shelf WP:RS on all cryptocurrency articles. I also noted above that I was concerned about some WP:OVERLINK that I noticed you doing at other articles. You seem to be a new editor (only about a week), please be aware of the policy and norms. I note you are also working on Draft:Bribery Attack, I would not that this is probably insufficient on sourcing. We dont really add these types of theories, unless they have mainstream RS coverage. Just my thoughts. Anyhow, the important part is for you to understand the policies about cryptocurrency. Welcome to wikipedia and please keep editing!

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate the help. Not my first ever time editing wikipedia but definitely my first time in the cryptocurrency and blockchain space. Thank you for informing me on some of the more restrictive rules.

I'll try to keep all those together moving forward.

HashBit782 (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf

I do think, however, that many top shelf RS simply isn't covering this industry at great or even medium depth, despite the enormous amount of information, and that if more information on niche topics can't be found here, it's going to be very difficult to find anywhere. But i understand the hesitancy to use sources that are obviously rife with bias and undisclosed advertising. I appreciate the help. HashBit782 (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are aware of that. But we are still not using the low quality sources. For examples we are not using forbes contributor sources. For mainstream crypto articles like bitcoin and ethereum, we dont seem to have much problem finding sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I fixed some of the source issues on Bribery Attack, especially with articles through ARXIV, I was able to find most or something similar through more credible spots. HashBit782 (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are not concerned about depth at this point in time. We are more concerned about WP:PROMO on these articles. Maybe in another ten years or so, we will have reliable industry publications, but generally we do not at this time. Coindesk is owned by DCG, theblock had a promotion/coi scandal a year or so ago, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (August 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

See the thread Sourcing on your talk page, please

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:HashBit782/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HashBit782! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrentappreciate the review. I'm a little confused about the sourcing issue. The source on the submission were three published journal articles, two of them from Cornell and another from Zhejiang University. Based on the Sourcing thread in my page, I thought this sort of scholarship would qualify as quality sources so i tried to keep exclusively to them. Happy to understand better how to post better sources on this topic. HashBit782 (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArXiv is flagged as unreliable. I suggest you might find the papers on a non Arvix source? It may, of course, be the flagging tool in common use in Enwiki that is at fault. Think a visit To an RS noticeboard might bear fruit, perhaps WP:RSN. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. See WP:ARXIV. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see! Thank you very much. I will try to find the same sources from a better link and maybe a couple more if I can and resubmit. I appreciate the help! HashBit782 (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better references are always a good thing. Once one meets a certain level, more are not always better. A fact you assert, once verified in a reliable source, is verified. More is gilding the lily. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

noted, thank you, i submitted the article again as draft instead of sandbox HashBit782 (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bribery Attack (September 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Utopes was:

Neologisms are not considered suitable for Wikipedia unless they receive substantial use and press coverage; this requires strong evidence in independent, reliable, published sources. Links to sites specifically intended to promote the neologism itself do not establish its notability.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bribery Attack and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Blockchain bridge (November 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Deb was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Article is poorly written and short on context. Should probably be a redirect or a paragraph in the main Blockchain article (in which this concept is not mentioned).

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Blockchain bridge and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Deb (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Bribery Attack

Hello, HashBit782. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bribery Attack, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Blockchain bridge

Hello, HashBit782. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Blockchain bridge, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Blockchain bridge

Hello, HashBit782. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Blockchain bridge".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]